IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 25.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN W.P.No.12477 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2011 PMR Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Chairman, Mr.P.Muthuvelraj, Adayalampattu Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. 2.The Regional Officer, Southern Regional office of All India Council for Technical Education, No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai – 600 025. 4.Anna University Rep by its Registrar, Chennai – 600 025. .. Respondents Prayer : This Writ Petition has filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Letter No.F.730-52-332 (CE) / ET/99 dated 03.09.2010 withdrawing the approval granted to the petitioner Institute and the consequential orders dated 18.04.2011 having Ref.No.11482/ECA 1/2010-2 and 06.05.2011 having Ref.No.11482 / ECA 1/2010 passed by the 3rd https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Respondent and quash the same and consequently permit the Petitioner to allow the 2008 – 2009 batch of 420 students in various disciplines to complete the courses from the Petitioner Institution . For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalinichidambaram, Senior counsel for Mr.V.Vaithiyalingam For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi For Respondent – 3 : Mr.E.Sampathkumar Special Government Pleader For Respondent – 4 : Mr.Manisundar Gopal for M/s G.M.Mani Associate ORDER There exists neither a College nor courses. The Engineering College is before this Court challenging the order of withdrawal of the approval and the consequential order of the third respondent to distribute the students who are studying in the petitioner College in other Colleges. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent granted provisional affiliation in 2001 and approval was granted for the College by the first respondent on 24.05.2006. The petitioner admitted the students for the academic Years 2008 – 2009 and 2009 – 2010. However, for certain infrastructural deficiencies, the affiliation was suspended on 09.06.2009 after issuing a Show Cause Notice on 29.04.2009 and getting reply from the petitioner on 12.05.2009. The said suspension order dated 09.06.2009 was challenged before this Court, in Writ Petition No.11648 of 2009 and the same was set aside and remanded for fresh disposal. 3. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a Show Cause Notice on 21.10.2009 seeking clarifications with regard to the infrastructural deficiencies. A reply was given on 06.11.2009 by the petitioner. A hearing committee submitted its report to the effect that the petitioner– Institute shall not make any fresh admissions and to take necessary steps to rectify the deficiencies and failure to get affiliation by 20.02.2010, the first respondent would cancel the approval. The said report was accepted by the first respondent and a copy of the committee's report was sent to the petitioner-Institute on receipt of the same, the petitioner Institution sent a reply on 16.02.2010 and requested the fourth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent to grant affiliation for the year 2010 – 2011. Meanwhile, the petitioner stopped admission of students from the Year 2009 – 2010 onwards. 4. The fourth respondent / Anna University did not grant affiliation by communication dated 11.03.2010. Therefore, the first respondent on 01.04.2010 intimated the petitioner about the withdrawal of approval, which was challenged in the Writ Petition No.7932 of 2010. By an order dated 13.07.2010, the withdrawal of approval order was set aside only with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner, to comply with the requirements and liberty was also given to the first respondent to take action in pursuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2009. 5. As per order of this Court, the Expert Committee visited the petitioner-Institution on 12.08.2010 and submitted a report on 27.08.2010 giving details of infrastructural deficiencies. The petitioner appeared before Expert Committee. The first respondent considered the Expert Committee's report on 27.08.2010 and by an order dated 03.09.2010, the withdrawal order dated 01.04.2010 was confirmed. By communication dated 19.04.2010, the first respondent requested the fourth respondent to transfer the students to other Colleges. 6. The third respondent by letter dated 18.04.2011 directed not to admit existing students for 2011 – 2012 and not to re-admit the previous batch for the Year 2011 – 2012. The third respondent by communication dated 06.05.2011 called for counseling for re- distribution of the students who are studying in the petitioner Institution. When the third respondent tried to implement the order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner is before this Court, Challenging the order already passed by the first respondent as well as the fourth respondent. 7. Mrs.Nalinichidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Institution submitted that during the Year 2008 – 2009 the petitioner-Institute had approval and affiliation and based on the same, the students were admitted and they are in final year and the withdrawal cannot affect the students who were already admitted when there was valid approval. Secondly, she submitted that even after the withdrawal of approval on 03.09.2010, the students who were admitted during the year 2007 – 2008 were allowed to complete the courses and they were conferred with degrees in April 2011. Therefore, the students who were already admitted and who are in the final year should be retained in the same College till the completion of the course. She further produced certain letters allegedly written by the students expressing the willingness to remain in the petitioner College and to complete the courses. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ She also pointed out that there are about 48 teachers, who are teaching the students and seven programs are conducted. Therefore, the students cannot be transferred to other Colleges. 8. On the contrary, Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, leaned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents submitted that the petitioner- Institution lacks infrastructure and following the due process of law, the approval was withdrawn and the fourth respondent / Anna University suspended and the affiliation. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader who appears for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent conducted a counseling on 21.05.2011 and 25.05.2011 for re-distribution of the students in compliance of the order passed by the first respondent dated 03.08.2010, and all the students attended the counseling and with their consent only, they were allotted to various Institutions and only formal orders are to be issued. 10. Mr.Manisundar Gopal for M/s G.M.Mani Associations, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/ Anna University submitted that even during the academic year 2008 – 2009, on 29.04.2009 itself, fourth respondent issued a Show Cause Notice to withdraw the affiliation and on 09.06.2009 itself, the affiliation was suspended. When that is the position, there is no valid courses in the eye of law for the students who have been admitted during the Year 2008 -2009. 11. It is seen from the records that till date, the infrastructural requirements are not complied with as they are mandatory for approval as well as affiliation. An Expert Committee of the first respondent visited the Institute on a complaint and filed its report pointing out the deficiencies which reads as follows:- " (1) Built up Area : There is a short fall of built up area by 548 sqmts. (2) Laboratories : All the labs ill-maintained w.r.t cleanliness, operations of equipments / Instruments. The workshop area is only 300 sqmt against a requirement of 900 sqmts. The labs for Aeronautical Engineering are under process of installing. (3)Computers : Computers short by 110 in nos. and also printers, short by 12 in nos. The Computer Centre is also very congested and approximately 10-15% of PCs are not found to be operational. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (4)Library : The seating capacity is only for 60 students against a requirement of 450 (approx.) Hence, seating facilities be improved. Also the library is found to be ill-maintained and full of dust. (5) Faculty : The faculty is found to be short by 01 for CSE, 04 for ECE, 01 for H& S, 04 for MCA. All faculties are paid case salaries only ad only consolidated. Hence, salaries as per AICTE scales not paid. No proper appointment orders are given and almost more than 50% faculty have joined during last one month only Faculty is found to be highly dissatisfied. No Ph.d qualified faculty are available for Engg/MCA/MBA departments. Very poor Cadre Ration observed against a requirement of 12 processors +24 Asst. Professor + 78 Lecturers, only 02 Professors +28 Asst. Professors + 84 Lecturers available. (6)Other observations : (a) Poor placement activities observed. No fulltime placement officers available. (b) During interaction with students it was found that students were unsatisfied w.r.t that facilities provided especially lab facilities. During inspection almost all labs were found to be ill-maintained an no cleanliness observed. Workshop area is only 300 sqmts. Teachers are paid only consolidated salaries and more than 50% have joined with last on month. " There is no explanation from the petitioner's Institution, whether it has been complied with or not. If really, there was fulfillment of the norms with regard to infrastructures, it would have been reported before this Court. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner's Institution so far has not taken any steps to satisfy the infrastructural norms. 12. The facts would speak for themselves and there is no dispute with regard to various dates and events that took place. It is seen that, after following the due process only, the approval as well as affiliation were withdrawn . Though, the petitioner challenged the order dated 03.09.2010, withdrawing the approval and consequential order dated 18.04.2011, the petitioner confined with regard to allotment of the students from the Petitioner-Institution https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to other Colleges. When the Institution lacks approval from the first respondent-council and affiliation from the fourth respondent / Anna University, there is no "institution" as well as "course" in the eye of law. In the absence of affiliation and as well as approval, the students cannot legally undergo "courses" in a College which are not in existence. The future of the students is paramount. There is no point in allowing the students to be retained in the petitioner Institution to undergo courses which are not legally approved and it will pose a question mark on the future of the students. 13. Engineering education is a professional one and quality education should be imparted to the students. The students would not only serve in our country, but also they are going abroad on employment. If they are not given appropriate and quality education, it will have telling effect on their quality and efficiency as Engineers. Therefore, if quality education is not given, that will also cause shadow on image of India outside our country, when the engineering students after graduation go out of country for employment. Therefore, in the interest of all, the retention of the students in the petitioner's College without affiliation and approval cannot be permitted. 14. It is not case of the petitioner that it complied with norms. Moreover, the withdrawal order confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the consequential order of re-allotment of the students to the other Institution was already done by the third respondent on 21.05.2011 and 25.05.2011 during counseling only formal orders are to be given. 15. Though the petitioner produced a bunch of letters allegedly to have been written by the students of the petitioner's Institution, expressing their willingness to remain in their Institute itself, this Court is not in a position to accept those letters. The students cannot have such a wish to remain in the Institution which does not have affiliation and approval. None of the students would afford to take such risk by remaining in the non existing Institution. That apart, an Expert Committee also gave its report on inspection and the students cannot have any say in this matter. Equally, this Court cannot sit on appeal over the decision of the Expert body and it is well settled by the law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16. In the interest of the students, the third respondent is directed to issue orders on or before 05.08.2011, so that no academic day is lost to the students. The students are required to join in the transferred Institution. In view of the above, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ connected the M.P.Nos.1,2 and 3 are closed. No costs. Call the matter on 08.08.2011 for reporting compliance. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. adl To 1.The Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. 2.The Regional Officer, Southern Regional office of All India Council for Technical Education, No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Directorate of Technical Education, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai – 600 025. 4. The Registrar Anna University Chennai – 600 025 1 cc to Government Pleader, sr. 44934 1 cc to M/s. G.M. Mani Associates, Sr. 44926 1 cc to Mrs.AL. Gandhimathi, Advocate, sr. 45011 W.P.No.12477 of 2011 MRD (CO) kk 1/8 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/