IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.10.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.6370 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya Polytechnic College, Rep. by its Correspondent, Swamy Anuragananda Sri Ramakrishna Vidyalaya Post, Coimbatore 641 020. .... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George,Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of Technical Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 3.The Principal Secretary /Commissioner of Technical Education and Chairman, Board of Examinations, Chennai 600 025. 4.All India Council for Technical Education, Rep. by its Member Secretary, 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned letters of the 3rd respondent dated 17.03.2009 and 08.04.2009 in Letter No.112386/M1/2008 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any way interfering with the internal administration of the petitioner institution. For petitioner : Mr.G.Masilamani, SC for Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy For respondent (s): Mr.P.Wilson, AAG Asst. By Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, G.A.(Education) for RR1 to 3 Mr.N.Muralikumaran for R4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The petitioner is a Polytechnic College. It was founded by Sri Ramakrishna Mission, which is a registered society several decades ago. It is offering Diploma courses in Technical Education. It is affiliated to the 2nd respondent. Under G.O.Ms.841, Education Department, dated 07.05.1980 the 2nd respondent granted academic autonomous status to the petitioner Polytechnic College. Fulfilling all the conditions stipulated therein, the petitioner polytechnic college was all along functioning enjoying the full status of autonomy. While so, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 ( in short , the AICTE Act") came into being. As per the said Act, the AICTE has issued guidelines on the scheme of autonomous polytechnic colleges and other Diploma level institutions throughout the country. The 2nd respondent by letter D.Dis.No.21930/H5/96, dated 10.05.1996 communicated the said guidelines to the petitioner indicating thereby, that the petitioner Polytechnic should follow the said guidelines scrupulously. 2. As per the guidelines, an autonomous polytechnic college will have freedom in respect of the following: (i) to determine and prescribe its own courses of study and syllabi in close collaboration with the user system; (ii) to prescribe rule of admission as per AICTE regulations, subject to the reservation policy of the State Government; (iii) to evolve methods of evaluation and to conduct examination; and (iv) the autonomy shall be a means to achieve higher standards and greater creativity in the future. An autonomous institution will be fully accountable for the content and quality of education that it imparts. It will be responsible for evaluation of students for awards of Diploma/Certificate which will be accepted by the parent Board. 3. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is the parent Board. After the coming into force of the said guidelines, indisputably, there was no need to get fresh affiliation or autonomous status. The affiliation granted earlier to the petitioner polytechnic college and the autonomous status granted hold good. 4. While the petitioner polytechnic college was enjoying the autonomous status, a letter was sent by the 3rd respondent on 17.03.2009 vide Ref. No.112386/M1/2008 directing the petitioner polytechnic college to take corrective measures to the effect that (1) Proposal for the Internal Evaluation System to be in consonance with the State Board's norms; (2) Grading of classes to be in conformity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the State Board's norms; and (3) To frame the curriculum within the time limit and get them approved by the State Board; 5. It was further informed that in the event of the petitioner failing to take corrective measures, the State Board of Technical Education may have to review the autonomous status for the institution which may lead to taking action to abridge or withdraw the autonomous status of the petitioner polytechnic college. In response to the said letter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 01.04.2009 requesting the respondents to convene the award committee meeting on 11.04.2009 and to depute DOTE nominees for the same. Thereafter, under letter No.112386/M1/2008, dated 08.04.2009, the 3rd respondent again informed the petitioner that he would be allowed to convene the award committee meeting only after corrective measures as advised in the letter dated 17.03.2009 have been taken. As a result, though the students have taken the examination and evaluation has been done by the college, since, award committee meeting was not held, the college could not recommend to the second respondent for awarding of certificates. Challenging these two letters the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 6. The crux of the contentions of the petitioner is as follows:- (i) The impugned letters tend to interfere with the internal administration of the petitioner polytechnic college which is impermissible in law. (ii) Refusal to convene the award committee to recommend for awarding of Diploma certificates to the candidates who have done the first year Diploma course during the year 2008- 2009 is highly arbitrary. (iii) The petitioner polytechnic college which is enjoying complete academic autonomy is free to prescribe its own curricula, method of valuation, etc., which have been rightly done. The impugned letters directing the petitioner polytechnic college to change the same is violative of the guidelines of AICTE. (iv) Neither the State Government nor the Director of Technical Education has got power to direct the petitioner to change the curricula, method of evaluation, in view of the Central Regulation which occupies the field. 7. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent, inter alia, it is contended that under the executive power of the State Government under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, in order to achieve higher standards of education, the Government has got power to prescribe higher qualifications than the qualifications prescribed by the AICTE. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.It is further contended that, the petitioner polytechnic college is bound by the guidelines stipulated by the special committee which prescribes modes for internal evaluation for awarding of marks. But, the petitioner institution has proposed for internal evaluation system in a different manner, more particularly, the petitioner institution proposes to award 10 marks for students appraisal , which is contrary to the special committee's report. 9.The next contention is that in the matter of awarding First class as per the Special Committee's Report , a student who completes all the papers including that of the I and II semesters within the stipulated period of study without break of study alone is entitled for First class and for First class with distiction; whereas according to the petitioner polytechnic college, in special cases, such as break in studies due to genuine reasons (e.g.,) medical / financial grounds, as per the recommendations a of the special committee constituted by the Principal for this purpose, even though a student has not completed the semesters within the stipulated study period and without any break of study, he is entitled for First class with honours and I class. This again runs contrary to the guidelines of AICTE. 10. Yet another contention is that, there cannot be two standards adopted for awarding of Diplomas by the State Board for Technical Education and Training, one as per the guidelines issued by the Directorate and the other by the petitioner according to its own regulations. 11.It is further contended that, if the proposal of the petitioner polytechnic college in the matter of internal evaluation system and the proposal regarding grading of classes are accepted, then, there will be decline in standard of education and that is the reason why, under the impugned letter, the petitioner polytechnic college was directed to take corrective measures to prescribe the internal evaluation system and grading of classes on par with the other institutions in the State governed by the 2nd respondent. 12.Lastly, it is stated that in respect of Diploma in Audit course, as per the DoTE scheme there are only 9 subjects, for which total number of 400 marks are awarded; whereas according to the proposal of the petitioner polytechnic college, 12 subjects have been included, for which a total number of 1300 marks is awarded. It is further contended that 3 additional subjects, which have been added have got nothing to do with the technical education and thus the inclusion of the same is illegal. It is also contended that if escalated marks are awarded for these 3 subjects for the students studying in the petitioner polytechnic college , certainly, it will have impact on the over all percentage of marks secured by the students. When the students, who are studying in the other institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu are pitted against the students who are studying in the petitioner college, certainly, the students in the petitioner polytechnic college will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be in advantageous position in the matter of percentage of over all marks. This would clearly amount to discrimination, which cannot be permitted. Further, adding additional subjects, which have no connection at all with the technical education would result in decline in standard of technical education. 13. The 4th respondent has not filed any separate counter affidavit. But, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 are bound by the guidelines issued by the 4th respondent and not by the special committee report on which reliance is now made by the respondents 1 to 3. 14. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the records carefully. 15. At the outset , I have to state that though the petitioner is an autonomous institution , it cannot claim absolute exemption from the purview of the Government as well as the Director of Technical Education. Though the petitioner polytechnic college follows its own curricula , conduct of examinations and evaluation of the students' performance , ultimately , the Diploma is awarded only by the 2nd respondent. As per the AICTE Regulations, the parent Board is the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent cannot blindly award Diplomas to whomsoever the petitioner polytechnic college recommends. The autonomy cannot be misunderstood to mean a complete freedom to the petitioner polytechnic college to prescribe any curricula, any method of evaluation and any mode of grading of the successful students. No freedom can be absolute without any reasonable restrictions; likewise no autonomy granted to any institution can be absolute without reasonable restrictions. Therefore, the whole issue involved in this case should be approached by keeping in mind that the State Government in its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India has got power to prescribe reasonable restrictions on the autonomy either in the matter of admission or in the matter of curricula or in the matter of evaluation or in the matter of grading. 16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, with his usual fairness, submitted that the petitioner polytechnic college is bound by the standards prescribed by the 2nd respondent. But, all that he would argue is that the inconsistencies pointed out in the impugned letters, requiring the petitioner polytechnic college to take corrective measures, would not result in decline in standard of education. But, the same would only add to the standard of technical education imparted by the petitioner polytechnic college. Therefore, according to him, the proposal to award 10 marks for students appraisal for the internal would only encourage better discipline, decorum and behaviour of the students. He would further submit that by the clauses treating the said cases such as, break in studies due to genuine reasons (e.g.,) medical and financial grounds as per the recommendations of the special committee constituted by the Principal for this purpose, is only in tune with the DOTE norms since non autonomous polytechnic colleges also have provisions of relaxation of break in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ studies due to genuine reasons provided the students concerned furnish documents to justify the claim. This also, according to the learned senior counsel, would not indicate that there is decline in standards of technical education. 17. In respect of marks awarded for 3 additional subjects for the Diploma in Audit course, it is stated that these subjects are essential ingredients for development of total personality of the students. These components were included by the staff and experts of the Board of Studies on the basis of the positive feed back from the students, parents and ALUMINI of the Institution. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, this is in no way in contradiction with the K-Scheme of the DoTE. Above all according to the learned senior counsel, adding 3 additional subjects and awarding of marks for the same would not in any manner result in decline in standard of technical education. 18. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would take me through the guidelines of the AICTE and the report of the Special Committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu which has all along been followed in the State of Tamil Nadu. According to him, awarding of 10 marks out of 25 marks for appraisal is not measurable qualitatively and it may lead to discrimination. This, according to him, is totally against the State Board norms. He would further submit that awarding of grades in the petitioner polytechnic college based on the medical / financial grounds and based on the opinion of the committee is weak in nature and not followed in any other institution in the State. It is unjust and the same will create unrest among the students of other Polytechnics. He would further submit that out of 343 polytechnics in the State where there are about 2.8 lacs students studying, if one polytechnic college is allowed to grade the students in a different manner, it will amount to clear discrimination among students. 19. He would further submit that the writ petition is highly prematured and the same is liable to be dismissed since the impugned letters are only show cause notices calling upon the petitioner polytechnic college to take corrective measures and cautioning the petitioner that in the event of failure , action would be taken to review the autonomous status granted to the petitioner polytechnic college. 20. At this juncture, it should be noticed that the results of the examination conducted during the academic year 2008-2009 have not so far been declared because the 2nd respondent, by means of the impugned letter, has been insisting to redo the evaluation and also the grading system prescribed by the Director of Technical Education. As a result, the students are suffering. 21. Though it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned letters are in the nature of only show cause notices, I am not impressed by the said arguments. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ De hors the said letters, if the 2nd respondent had taken any action to safeguard the interest of the students without wasting their valuable career , then, this Court would have been in a position to appreciate the said argument. Since, the respondents 1 and 2 have rest contended with the two letters without taking any further action and as a result, the fate of the students is in perils, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition cannot be termed as highly premature warranting dismissal at its threshold as it is argued by the learned Additional Advocate General. 22. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the guidelines issued by the AICTE bind the petitioner polytechnic college. As per Clause 5 of the guidelines , the right of autonomy many not be conferred once for all. The exercise of rights on freedom of autonomy will however be continuously earned and deserved. Initially, the autonomy be granted for a period of 3 years and the same be reviewed every 3 years with the help of the committee constituted thereunder. In case of evidence of declining standards in technical education, it is open to the State Board, after careful scrutiny, to revoke the autonomy itself in consultation with the AICTE. 23. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there is a decline in standard of technical education in the petitioner polytechnic college and therefore, the impugned notices were issued only with a view to review the autonomous status. In my considered opinion, in so far as the petitioner polytechnic college is concerned, the autonomous status was not conferred in pursuance of AICTE guidelines after coming into force of the same. The autonomous status was given to the petitioner polytechnic college in the year 1980 as per the norms prescribed by the Director of Technical Education based on the report of the special committee. Though, for all practical purposes, the autonomous status conferred prior to the coming into force of AICTE guidelines has been adopted as autonomous status granted under the said guidelines, it should be construed that the said autonomous status shall be in force only for 3 years from the date of coming into force of AICTE guidelines in the year 1996. This court is not informed that on expiry of 3 years term, after coming into force of the AICTE Norms, the respondents 1 and 2 had ever reviewed the autonomy given to the petitioner polytechnic college as required under the guidelines once in 3 years. Though, the guidelines were issued in the year 1996, for about 13 years, the petitioner polytechnic college has been enjoying the autonomy without there has been any review of the autonomy as required under the guidelines. This shows that the respondents 1 and 2 have not discharged their functions in the expected lines. It is also not brought to the notice of this Court that a committee has been constituted in the State of Tamil Nadu to review the autonomous status of these polytechnics as required under the AICTE guidelines and that the State Board has collected any material so far evidencing declining standards of technical education imparted in the petitioner polytechnic college. It is also not the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that the State Board has been in consultation with the AICTE for the purpose of withdrawing the autonomous status. When the 2nd respondent has not reviewed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ autonomous status every 3 years as required under the AICTE guidelines, it is really surprising to hear the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned notices are in the nature of show cause notices to withdraw the autonomous status given to the petitioner polytechnic college. The question of revoking autonomy would arise only when there are materials collected during the 3 years period for which autonomy is granted. In the case on hand, since no review was done so far for the past 13 years , even now it is the obligation of the 2nd respondent to review the autonomous status given to the petitioner so as to decide whether to allow the petitioner polytechnic college to enjoy the autonomy for another 3 years or not. Thus, in my considered opinion, it does not require any show cause notice at all, as contended by the learned Additional Advocate General. As it is abundantly clear from the guidelines issued by the AICTE that the 2nd respondent is required only to constitute a Committee as required thereunder to review whether to allow the petitioner polytechnic college to enjoy the autonomy for another 3 years or not. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned letters are only show cause notices for reviewing the autonomous status given to the petitioner polytechnic college cannot be accepted because no such show cause notice is required for reviewing. If it is the question of revocation , then such notice may be required. 24. Coming back to the contention of the petitioner in respect of awarding of marks in the internal assessment and grading of students, let me, now, consider a comparative table submitted by the petitioner in respect of internal marks for the academic year 2008-2009 which is as follows: INTERNAL MARKS BREAK-UPS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DoTE Scheme Petitioner Scheme Theory Mark Practica l Mark Attendanc e 5 Attenda nce 5 Test 10 Procedu re, observa tion and tabulat ion / other related practic al work 10 Assignmen t 10 result 10 Total marks 25 Record Writing 25 Total marks 25 Theory marks Practical mark Students Appraisal 10 Procedure 10 Assignmen ts 5 Observatio n, Calculatio ns etc., 10 Continuou s Assessmen t tests 5 Result & Neatness 5 Model Examinati on 5 25. Regarding awarding of 5 marks on assignments, 5 marks for continuous assessment tests and 5 marks for model examination as per the proposal of the petitioner, the respondents have got no objection at all as these marks are awarded based on the objective evaluation. The dispute is only in respect of awarding of 10 marks for students appraisal. This, according to the petitioner, is necessary to encourage better discipline, decorum and behaviour of students. But, according to the respondents, this will lead to discrimination and arbitrariness. Further, it is against the State Board norms. In so far as the norms of the State Board are concerned, as I have already stated and as admitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, it bind the petitioner polytechnic college. According to the State Board norms, for attendance 5 marks is given, which is missing in the case of the petitioner's proposal. In my considered opinion, it would be in fitness of things that 5 marks for attendance is awarded by the petitioner polytechnic college also in tune with the State Board norms. The remaining 5 marks may be awarded on the basis of any other objective evaluation. Admittedly, during the years 2006-07, 2007-08 for internal assessment, 25 marks were awarded by the petitioner polytechnic college under three categories viz., 5 marks for assessment, 10 marks for continuous assessment test and 10 marks for model examination. It was not objected to by the respondents as there was no subjective test regarding the internal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessment marks; whereas under the proposal for the year 2008- 2009 marks are awarded for internal assessment on subjective test. Therefore, as it was during the year 2006-07 and 2007-08, the petitioner polytechnic college may award 10 marks for continuos assessment test instead of 5 marks. If that is done all the 3 tests would be objective which would escape the criticism of arbitrariness. To put it otherwise, the petitioner polytechnic college may award 5 marks for attendance; 5 marks for assessments, 10 marks for continuos assessment tests and 5 marks for model examination. If this is done, in my considered opinion, the problems could be solved. During his concluding argument, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner polytechnic college is willing to go by the verdict of this Court, if on consideration of entire arguments, this Court comes to the conclusion that awarding of 10 marks for students' appraisal would not be in accordance with law. 26. Considering the said fair submission made above , I am of the view that to obviate the doubt regarding the possibility of discrimination, the method suggested above may be adopted by the petitioner polytechnic college which may be acceptable to the respondents also. This suggestion is made because this Court is of the view that awarding of 10 marks for students appraisal will lead to unreasonable awarding of marks subject to whims and fancies of the teachers and the same would result in arbitrariness. Therefore, I hold that awarding of 10 marks for students appraisal in the internal examination is not sound in legal sense. In this regard, the respondents 1 and 2 have got power to direct the petitioner to correct the same as the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned with quality and high standard of technical education to be imparted to the students. 27. While coming to the next issue regarding grading of successful students, a comparative statement in respect of grading of students as submitted by the