1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8354 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 Dhaya College of Engineering Sivarakottai Village Thirumangalam Taluk Madurai 625 706 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr.S.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Secretary to Government Higher Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2. The Commissioner-cum-Director of Technical Education Guindy Chennai 3. The Anna University of Technology Madurai Rep. by its Registrar Madurai - 625 002 ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent herein to affiliate the petitioner college under the third respondent from the academic year 2011-2012 and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner college to admit students both under the counselling as well as management seats commencing from 2011-2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader O R D E R Dhaya College of Engineering, represented by Authorised Signatory, has sought for a mandamus, directing the Anna University of Technology, Madurai, the third respondent herein, to grant affiliation to the petitioner's college, for the academic year 2011-2012 and consequently direct the respondents, to permit the petitioner's college to admit students both under the counselling, as well as management seats commencing for the academic year 2011-2012. 2. According to them, a Trust was initially created in the name of M.K.Alagiri Educational Trust and came to be amended on 25.07.2008. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Trust wanted to start an Engineering College to offer technical education in five programmes viz., B.E., (Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Electronics & Communication Engineering and Computer Science Engineering). Accordingly, a College was established in the name of Dhaya College of Engineering. The petitioner's Trust approached the All India Council for Technical Education for approval, as the construction had already been completed. AICTE evaluated the application by referring the application to a Scrutiny Committee. An Expert Committee inspected and visited the college on 18.05.2011. AICTE also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- towards security deposit. Having satisfied with the infrastructure, construction of the buildings and other statutory requirements, AICTE has granted approval for starting an Engineering College on 14.06.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to Anna University of Technology, Madurai to grant affiliation for the academic year 2011-2012. In furtherance of the request, a Committee was constituted by the University on 21.07.2011 and that a proceeding dated 22.07.2011 was issued by the University stating that the following deficiencies were notified:- (1) There is a shortage of 175 library books for Science and Humanities; (2) Location of the Cafeteria is by the side of the class rooms which may create noise in managing the process; and (3) Transport facility is not available. 3. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that though the abovesaid deficiencies do not pertain to Engineering courses conduct of examination by the University or the college with reference to the engineering course, for which approval is granted, still the deficiencies pointed out were rectified and accordingly, petitioner sent a reply dated 25.07.2011, sent to Anna University of Technology, Madurai and despite the receipt of the same, the University has not come forward to affiliate the education institution, namely, Dhaya College of Engineering and in these, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition. 4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counselling for admission to engineering course in the State of Tamil Nadu is likely to be closed on 08.08.2011 and if the relief prayed for is not granted before the said date, the petitioner would be subjected to irreparable loss and hardship. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader, was directed notice for the respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner was also permitted to take notice through Court, as well as privately, to the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, the third respondent herein, returnable by 01.08.2011. Accordingly, private notice has been served on the third respondent. 5. On this day, Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader, who appeared for all the three respondents submitted that there are certain irregularities in the matter of conversion of the lands, used for construction and that appropriate permission has not been obtained from the Town Planning Authorities. It is his further submission that for granting affiliation, a College has to fulfil certain conditions and mere approval by All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi is not sufficient. According to him, unless the University grants affiliation to the Educational Institution, admissions cannot be made. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the Committee which inspected the Educational Institution, namely, Dhaya College of Engineering, did not take note of certain things and therefore, the University has proposed to send another inspection team. In such circumstances, learned Special Government Pleader sought time to file a detailed counter affidavit. The objections of the learned Special Government Pleader are placed on record. 7. However, taking this Court through the averments and the material on record, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as Madurai region is concerned, three Engineering Colleges, namely, SSM Institute of Engineering, Technology and CR Engineering College and Daya College of Engineering, were granted approval by All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi. In so far as Dhaya College of Engineering is concerned, five engineering degree were permitted by AICTE, when approval was granted on 14.06.2011. Subsequently, the third respondent University has issued proceedings for inspection. However, even before the inspection could be conducted and affiliation granted by the third respondent University, the two colleges were allowed to participate in the counselling, for the academic year 2011-2012. Whereas, Dhaya College of Engineering, though satisfied all the requirements, was not granted affiliation. 8. Inviting the attention of this Court to the letter, dated 22.07.2011, issued by the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that all the three deficiencies already identified have been rectified and when a reply by the petitioner, dated 25.07.2011 was given, the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, ought to have granted affiliation for the academic year 2011-2012. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations made by the State counsel, have to be eschewed as it is not supported by any records. In view of the last date fixed for admission of students, for engineering courses, he requested, this Court to pass appropriate orders. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. Material on record discloses that All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, had already inspected Daya College of Engineering and having satisfied that the said educational institution has fulfilled the norms and conditions for grant of approval, as per AICTE Regulations, by order dated 14.06.2011, has granted approval, to start an Engineering College. Some of the requirements like infrastructure / equipments and verification of documents, fund by the Expert Committee, as satisfactory, are as follows:- (1) Availability of Books - Titles & Volumes; (2) A certificate by an architect giving details of sewage disposal system, barrier free environment and toilets created for physically challenged and all weather approach road; (3) Video recording with date and time of the entire proceedings of the Expert Committee visit, which will form part of the Expert Committee report; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 Verification with respect to norms - all programme taken together Refer application, deficiency report and process handbook for actual requirement No. required No. available Ready & Accepted Books - Titles 2500 2651 Books - Volumes 500 825 International Journals 15 15 National Journals 30 30 E Journal Subscription Reading room seating capacity 30 30 Multimedia PCs in library 05 05 Refer application, deficiency report and process handbook for actual requirement No. required Area Norm Sqm Total Area required sqm A B C=AxB Library 01 400 400 Examination control office 01 30 30 Cafeteria 01 150 150 Verification of Instructional area: Engineering And Technology Refer application, deficiency report and process handbook for actual requirement No. required Area Norm Sqm Total Area required sqm A B C=AxB Classrooms 05 66 330 Tutorial Rooms 02 33 66 Laboratories / Animal House / Restaurant 01 660 660 12. After satisfying with the regulations, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, the competent authority, has granted approval on 14.06.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner has addressed the third respondent University to grant of affiliation. Pursuant to the request, an Inspecting Committee has visited the College on 21.07.2011 and noticed the following deficiencies: (1) There is a shortage of 175 library books for Science and Humanities; (2) Location of the Cafeteria is by the side of the class rooms which may create noise in managing the process; and (3) Transport facility is not available. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 13. On the abovesaid grounds, the Registrar of Anna University of Technology, Madurai, has deferred affiliation for the College for the academic year 2011-2012. After rectifying the defects pointed out, a reply, dated 25.07.2011, has been sent to the third respondent, University. The reply reads as follows: (1) The shortage in number of books have been purchased and made good; (2) We have shifted the cafeteria to another building away from the academic block and it will not create noise in managing the process; and (3) Numbers of bus with the capacity of 40 each has been ordered and one number is purchased, remaining two will reach to our college campus at the time of opening of the college. 14. It is well settled, by this Court in more than one occasion that the role of the University in respect of a professional colleges in the matter of grant of affiliation is a matter of course. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu & another V. V.S.B.Educational Trust and others reported in 2006-4-L.W. 234, has held that once the Educational Institution satisfies the terms and conditions contained in the regulations of the AICTE, and in as much as, they have complied with the requirements, as per norms, they are entitled to get the college affiliated to the University. 15. Though learned counsel for the State and the University has sought for time, to putforth their objections, by way of a counter affidavit, having regard to the abovesaid legal position and the limited role of the University in the matter of affiliation and also of the fact that counselling for engineering admissions is scheduled to be closed by 08.08.2011, this Court is not inclined to grant adjournment for the simple reason that it is well settled that the Courts have consistently held that any impugned order or objections made fall or succeed, for the reasons stated therein that it cannot be supported by any counter affidavit. The University is only an examining body, to prescribe and recognize a pattern of study of programme, award degrees, diplomas etc., and the power of the University is only confined, to consider the application for affiliation, and satisfy as to whether the Educational Institution, fulfils the requirements for conducting an examination. The University, has no jurisdiction or authority to transgress into the powers of AICTE, which granted approval to the college. 16. As rightly held by the Division Bench, once an approval from AICTE has been obtained, there can be no further conditions imposed by the Anna University for grant of affiliation and any condition would be in conflict with the approval granted by AICTE. In this regard, it is worthwhile to extract the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others reported in 1995 (4) SCC 104 and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner and Secretary Government of Higher Education Department, Kerala, reported in 2000 (5) SCC 231, relied on by the Division Bench and paragraphs Nos. 12 and 13 is extracted hereunder: 12. In Adhiyaman's case, the question involved before the Supreme Court was whether, after coming into force of the AICTE Act, 1987, the State Government has power to grant and withdraw permission to start a technical institution as defined in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 Central Act. After referring to various Entries, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded thus: "30. A comparison of the Central Act and the University Act will show that as far as the institutions imparting technical education are concerned, there is a conflict between and overlapping of the functions of the Council and the University. Under Section 10 of the Central Act, it is the Council which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technical institutions, laying down norms and standards for courses, curricula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new courses or programmes, to lay down norms or granting autonomy to technical institutions, providing guidelines for admission of students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes, declaring institutions at various levels and types fit to receive grants, advising the Commission constituted under the Act for declaring technical educational institutions as deemed universities, setting up of National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation on the basis of guidelines and standards specified and to make recommendations to it or to the Council or the Commission or other bodies under the Act regarding recognition or de-recognition of the institution or the programme conducted by it. Thus, so far as these matters are concerned, in the case of the institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University Act and the University but it is the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction. To that extent, after the coming into operation of the Central Act, the provisions of the University Act will be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges like the engineering colleges. As has been pointed out earlier, the Central Act has been enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I to coordinate and determine the standards of technical institutions as well as under Entry 25 of List III. The provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges like the engineering colleges and the conditions for grant and continuation of such affiliation by the University shall, however, remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the University for grant and continuance of affiliation will have to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council in respect of matters entrusted to it under Section 10 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 the Central Act. 13. In Jaya Gokul's case cited supra, the following conclusion of their Lordships in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment is relevant. 22. As held in T.N. case the Central Act of 1987 and in particular, Section 10(k) occupied the field relating to “grant of approvals” for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the Central Act alone were to be complied with. So far as the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act or its statutes were concerned and in particular Statute 9(7), they merely required the University to obtain the “views” of the State Government. That could not be characterised as requiring the “approval” of the State Government. If, indeed, the University statute could be so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the State Government would be repugnant to the provisions of Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would again be void. As pointed out in T.N. case there were enough provisions in the Central Act for consultation by the Council of AICTE with various agencies, including the State Governments and the universities concerned. The State-Level Committee and the Central Regional Committees contained various experts and State representatives. In case of difference of opinion as between the various consultees, AICTE would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the State Governments and the universities. No doubt the question of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered by the Central Act but in T.N. case it was held that the University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by AICTE. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. The University could not, therefore, in any event have sought for “approval” of the State Government. 23. Thus we hold, in the present case that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and even if there was one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. The University Statute 9(7) merely required that the “views” of the State Government be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not amount to obtaining “approval”. If the University statute required “approval”, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act..." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 17. The contention, that the petitioner's College has not obtained necessary permission from the competent authority for conversion of lands, to put up construction for the college is not a matter to be gone into by the University. The role of the University is very limited, ie., only with respect to grant of affiliation. Once the deficiencies, pointed out have been rectified, the University has to grant affiliation, so as to enable the Educational Institution to participate in the counselling. 18. In the case on hand, though averments have been made to the effect that SSM Institute of Engineering, Technology and CR Engineering College, granted approval, along with the writ petitioner, were permitted to be included in the list of Educational Institutions to take part in the counselling held on 16.07.2011, even before affiliation could be granted to them, no materials have been placed before this Court rebutting the same. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the State that a fresh Committee has to be constituted for inspecting the Educational Institution, with regard to the oral objections stated supra, cannot be countenanced, for the reason that, such objections cannot be issued by the University once approval has already been granted, by All India Council for Technical Education. No roving enquiry can be conducted by a University regarding approval. So long as the order of approval of AICTE is in force, the University cannot refuse to grant affiliation on grounds not germane to affiliation. 20. In the above said circumstances, a direction is issued to the Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Madurai, to consider the reply of the petitioner, dated 25.07.2011, and grant affiliation to the educational institution, if the deficiencies are rectified, so as to enable the Institution, to admit the students and also to take part in the counselling. 21. With the abovesaid directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1. The Secretary to Government,Higher Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 2. The Commissioner-cum-Director of Technical Education Guindy, Chennai 3. The Registrar, The Anna University of Technology Madurai,Madurai - 625 002 +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 25337 +1. CC to Mr.Veera. Kathiravan, Advocate, SR.No. 25390 vsg W.P.(MD).No.8354 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 01.08.2011 TR : 01.08.2011: 8p/6c: IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/