IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 24-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.11648 of 2009 P.M.R.Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Chairman P.Muthuvelraj Adayalampattu Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District-600 095. .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001. 2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The Director of Technical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 025. 4.The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai-600 025. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in his proceedings Lr.No.1856/CAI/Sus.Aff./2009, dated 9.6.2009 and quash the same as illegal and direct the 4th respondent to grant affiliation to the programmes for the academic year 2009-2010 of the petitioner College herein. For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Purushothaman For Respondents : Mr.N.Muralikumaran (R1) Ms.Dakshayani Reddy (R2 & R3) Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal (R4) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. Mr.P.Muthuvelraj, the founder Trustee and Chairman of P.M.R.Educational Trust, has filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition, on behalf of the petitioner Institute. He has submitted that P.M.R.Educational Trust has been created for imparting quality technical education to the students by establishing Engineering Colleges. The said Trust had established P.M.R. Institute of Technology and P.M.R.Engineering College at Adyalampattu Village in Ambattur Taluk, on the outskirts of Chennai city. P.M.R.Institute of Technology, which is the petitioner Institute, was established by the Trust, in the year 2000, as a Self-financing College, without receiving any statutory grants. 4. The petitioner Institute has been adhering to the Rules and Regulations stipulated by the All India Council for Technical Education. The petitioner Institute had been granted provisional affiliation by the fourth respondent University for the following programmes: Sl.No. Degree Programme(s) 1. B.E. Aeronautical Engineering 2. B.E. Computer Science and Engineering 3. B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering 4. B.E. Electronics and Communication Engineering 5. B.Tech. Information Technology 6. M.B.A. Business Administration 7. M.C.A. Computer Application 5. While the petitioner Institute has been conducting the above mentioned courses various issues had cropped up, including the issue relating to the alleged admission of students, in excess of the permitted limit, through the Single Window system. The fourth respondent Anna University had also made various allegations against the petitioner Institute stating that it does not have adequate facilities and amenities, as per the norms of affiliation, including the lack of sufficient laboratory equipments, hostel accommodation, canteen, transport etc. It was also alleged that the petitioner Institute does not have adequate teaching faculty to meet the teacher student ratio of 1:15, as required by the All India Council for Technical Education. It was also alleged that there was impersonation by some of the persons, who were posing as faculty members, during the inspection of the petitioner Institute by the Inspection Committee appointed by the fourth respondent University. It was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further alleged that the petitioner Institute has not been maintaining the teacher student ratio of 1:15 by taking into account the sanctioned intake of students. 6. While stating the chronology of events that had occurred in the recent past, it has been pointed out that the All India Council for Technical Education, the first respondent herein, being satisfied with the performance and the facilities provided by the petitioner Institute, had granted approval for the academic year 2006-2007, for 240 students, for four programmes, on 24.5.2006. On 27.10.2006, the first respondent had granted the approval to the petitioner Institute for the revised intake of 330 students, for the said programmes, for the academic year 2006-2007. Thereafter, on 2.8.2007, the first respondent had granted approval for the revised intake of 480 students for seven programmes, for the academic year 2007-2008. 7. On 17.9.2007, the fourth respondent University had granted affiliation to the petitioner Institute for an additional number of 60 seats, in excess of the number of seats applied for by the petitioner Institute. The fourth respondent University had also allotted the seats through the Single Window System. The first respondent had granted approval for the revised intake of 540 students, for seven programmes, for the academic years 2008-2010, on 17.7.2008. On 18.8.2008, the fourth respondent University had directed the petitioner Institute to rectify certain defects in the B.Tech (Information Technology) and M.B.A. (Business Administration) programmes. On 20.10.2008, the petitioner Institute had approached the first respondent to grant approval for the excess students admitted through the fourth respondent University through Single Window System, by mistake. 8. On 24.10.2008, the fourth respondent University had informed the petitioner Institute that there would be a re-inspection conducted on 4.11.2008. On 25.11.2008, the fourth respondent University had informed the petitioner Institute about the postponement of the re-inspection of B.Tech (Information Technology) Programme conducted by the petitioner Institute, stating that it would be held, on 2.12.2008. Thereafter, on 2.12.2008, it was further postponed to 5.12.2008. During the re-inspection conducted, on 5.12.2008, with regard to the B.Tech (Information Technology) Programme, certain enquiries had also been made in the Computer Science and Engineering Departments. The inspection team had alleged that, during the enquiries made in respect of the Computer Science and Engineering Departments two persons from the school run by P.M.R.Educational Trust and P.M.R. Software Technology were impersonating as lecturers in the said Departments. While so, on 8.12.2008, the third respondent had granted approval for the five technical courses offered by the Institute, after due verification of the records and the facilities provided. On 12.1.2009, the petitioner Institute had submitted an explanation, with regard to the allegation of impersonation, stating that the said persons were experts with industrial experience and they were guest lecturers. 9. It has been further stated that there was some unrest amongst https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the students of the petitioner Institute, between 9.2.2009 and 11.2.2009, following which an agreement was entered into between the petitioner Institute and the fourth respondent University, on 13.2.2009, for the visit by an enquiry committee to the petitioner Institute, on 23.2.2009. On 29.4.2009, the fourth respondent University had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner Institute. On 12.5.2009, the petitioner Institute had submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice issued by the fourth respondent University. Thereafter, on 9.6.2009, the impugned order had been issued by the fourth respondent University, suspending the affiliation of the petitioner Institute for the following programmes: Sl.No . Degree Programme(s) Sanctioned Intake 2008 1. B.E. Aeronautical Engineering 60 2. B.E. Computer Science and Engineering 120 3. B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering 53 4. B.E. Electronics and Communication Engineering 120 5. B.Tech. Information Technology 109 6. M.B.A. Business Administration 60 7. M.C.A. Computer Application 60 It had also informed the petitioner Institute not to admit students for the said programmes from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. In such circumstances, the petitioner Institute had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Counter affidavits have not been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent all the averments and allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner Institute was granted provisional affiliation, for the first time, in the year 2001. Thereafter, provisional affiliation had been granted during the subsequent years, till the academic year 2008-2009, for the courses approved by the All India Council for Technical Education. 12. It has been further stated that the petitioner Institute had applied for the continuation of the provisional affiliation, on 29.1.2008, for the grant of affiliation, for the academic year 2008- 2009. The Inspection Committee constituted by the fourth respondent University had inspected the petitioner Institute, on 26.4.2008. At the time of inspection several deficiencies in the infrastructural facilities, including the laboratory, library and other general facilities, as well as deficiencies in the the faculty had been noted and recorded by the Inspection Committee. The deficiencies were intimated to the petitioner Institute, vide Letter dated 18.8.2008, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ granting sixty days time to submit a compliance report. Thereafter, the petitioner Institute had submitted a compliance report, on 16.10.2008. Pursuant to the said compliance report it was informed that an Inspection Committee would visit the petitioner Institute, on 4.11.2008, to verify the rectifications made in respect of the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee. During the inspection conducted by the Inspection committee, on 4.11.2008, the records submitted by the petitioner Institute were not in order. Hence, the Inspection Committee had once again visited the petitioner Institute, on 5.12.2008, after granting sufficient time to the petitioner Institute to keep its records in order. At the time of the inspection, on 5.12.2008, the Inspection Committee had noticed that some of their teachers from P.M.R.Matriculation Higher Secondary School and some employees of PMR Software Technology were shown as though they were faculty members of the petitioner Institute. The Committee had also noted that there were cases of impersonation. The certificates and other documents relating to Ms.S.Sumathi, Ms.R.N.Jennipher and Mr.J.Darwin were used by Ms.G.Amutha, Ms.K.Yogamangalam and another person. When the Inspection committee had enquired about the cases of impersonation the Principal of the petitioner Institute had reported that he was unaware of them. 13. It has been further stated that, based on the report of the Inspection Committee, the fourth respondent University had issued a letter, dated 30.12.2008, to the Chairman of the petitioner Institute, calling for an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioner Institute. The explanation submitted by the Chairman of the petitioner Institute was not acceptable and therefore, the matter, with all the relevant particulars, was placed before the Syndicate of the fourth respondent University. 14. It has been further stated that the Syndicate of the fourth respondent University, in its meeting held, on 4.2.2009, had resolved to initiate action against the petitioner Institute. Hence, a Committee was constituted to enquire into the facts relating to the eligibility and genuineness of the faculty members, who had handled the classes for the various programmes, during the academic year 2008-2009. Further, the Committee was also directed to verify the complaints received from the parents and the students of the petitioner Institute relating to the adequacy of the basic amenities, such as transport, drinking water, toilets, canteens etc., the fine imposed for the lack of attendance and for other reasons, the laboratory facilities available, the Hostel facilities, especially, for the ladies and the availability of generators. 15. While so, the petitioner Institute had applied for the continuation of the provisional affiliation for the academic year 2009-2010, on 10.1.2009. The Enquiry Committee constituted, based on the resolution of the Syndicate, had visited the petitioner Institute, on 25.2.2009. Based on the enquiry conducted by the said Committee it had recommended for initiating suitable action against the petitioner Institute, since the Institute had deliberately suppressed the true information and had presented wrong statistics in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of the faculty members. The report of the Enquiry Committee had been placed before the Syndicate, in its meeting held on 15.4.2009. The syndicate had resolved to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner Institute as to why the affiliation granted to it should not be suspended and as to why the admission of students for all the courses should not be stopped from the academic year 2009- 2010 onwards. Based on the resolution passed by the Syndicate of the fourth respondent University a show cause notice, dated 29.04.1999 had been issued, seeking for an explanation regarding the various deficiencies that had been noted by the Enquiry Committee. The petitioner Institute, vide its letter, dated 12.5.2009, had submitted a reply to the show cause notice. However, the explanation submitted by the petitioner Institute does not explain the specific issues raised in the show cause notice. Only a vague and untenable reply had been given. After the receipt of the reply to the show cause notice and after a careful consideration of the said reply, the fourth respondent University had passed an order, dated 9.6.2009, directing the petitioner Institute not to admit students from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. 16. It has been further stated that the earlier reply, dated 12.5.2009, submitted by the petitioner Institute to the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, was placed before the 40th Standing Committee on Affiliation. The said Standing Committee concluded that the petitioner Institute had provided irrelevant and untrue information to the fourth respondent University. Accordingly, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner Institute asking for an explanation. The reply of the petitioner Institute, dated 12.5.2009, had been received by the fourth respondent University, on 19.5.2009. The decision of the Standing Committee on affiliation was placed before the Syndicate in its 197th meeting, dated 24.6.2009 and the Syndicate had resolved to approve the recommendations of the 40th Standing committee on Affiliation held on 5.6.2009, and to ratify the action taken based on the recommendations made in that regard. In view of the fact that the syndicate had passed a resolution ratifying the orders passed by the Registrar, the subsequent reply and the details furnished by the petitioner Institute, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 9.7.2009, would be placed before the Syndicate for appropriate decision during its meeting which is likely to be convened during the first week of August, 2009, for the passing of appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law. 17. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Institute had submitted that the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, passed by the fourth respondent University is arbitrary, illegal and void. Sufficient details had not been furnished to the petitioner Institute, in the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth respondent University. The impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, has been issued by the fourth respondent University, without considering the detailed explanation, dated 12.5.2009, submitted by the petitioner Institute. In spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner Institute the fourth respondent University, had proceeded to pass a drastic order, dated 9.6.2009, directing the management of the petitioner Institute not to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admit students for all the seven programmes mentioned therein, from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. The said order would not only erode the fair name of the petitioner Institute, but it would also adversely affect the interests of the students. Instead of giving an opportunity to the petitioner Institute to rectify the deficiencies found by the Inspection Committee, if any, the fourth respondent University, had taken the drastic step of invoking Regulation 25 of the Statutes and Regulations for Affiliation of the fourth respondent University, which empowers the University to suspend the affiliation of any academic programme conducted by a College or an Institute provided the University is satisfied that there are prima facie evidence available, pursuant to the preliminary investigations conducted by the University, through authorised enquiry committees, with regard to the authenticity of the complaints received, or in respect of the non-compliance of the statutory provisions, pending final decisions regarding the withdrawal of affiliation. The fourth respondent University is also empowered to direct the concerned College or Institute not to admit fresh students to the academic programmes, in respect of which the affiliation had been suspended. 18. The learned counsel had further submitted that the petitioner Institute which was established by P.M.R.Educational Trust, in the year 2000, has been strictly adhering to the Rules and Regulations of the All India Council for Technical Education, as well as the other provisions applicable to the petitioner Institute. From the time of its inception, the petitioner Institute has been granted provisional affiliation, by the fourth respondent University, for the various programmes conducted by it. While so, a deficiency report, dated 18.8.2008, had been sent to the petitioner Institute to rectify the deficiencies noted therein. The said report related to only two of the programmes of the petitioner Institute, namely, B.Tech (Information Technology) and M.B.A (Business Administration). Sixty days time was given for rectifying the deficiencies and for submitting the compliance report. By a communication, dated 30.8.2008, the petitioner Institute had sent the compliance report to the Regional Officer, Southern Regional Office, All India Council for Technical Education, Chennai, with a request to accord extension of approval for the existing courses, beyond the academic year 2008- 2009. Thereafter, a communication, dated 20.10.2008, had been sent by the petitioner Institute requesting for an approval order for the increased intake of students for the academic year 2008-2009, in the Information Technology and Electrical and Electronics Engineering Courses. While so, by a communication dated, 24.10.2008, the fourth respondent University had intimated the petitioner Institute that an Inspection Committee would visit the petitioner Institute, on 4.11.2008, to verify the rectification of the deficiencies, in respect of the academic programmes concerned. Later, by another communication, dated 25.11.2008, it was informed that the Inspection committee would visit the College, on 2.12.2008, to verify the rectification of the deficiencies, in respect of the academic programme, namely, B.Tech (Information Technology). By a further communication, dated 2.12.2008, it was informed that the Committee would visit the petitioner Institute, on 5.12.2008, to verify the deficiencies in respect of the said programme. Later, by a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ communication signed, on 30.12.2008, issued on behalf of the fourth respondent University the petitioner Institute had been asked to explain within seven days from the date of the said communication as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated, as per the Statutes and Regulations of the fourth respondent University, with regard to the alleged impersonation of the faculty members during the re-inspection of the petitioner Institute conducted by the Committee, on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, on 12.1.2000, the petitioner Institute had submitted an explanation to the fourth respondent University stating that the allegation regarding impersonation by some faculty members is baseless and false. 19. It was further submitted that, on 11.2.2009, a meeting had been held at the office of the Directorate of Technical Education in which the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and other officials of the fourth respondent University had participated. During the said meeting the management of the petitioner Institute had clarified certain issues raised by the students and it had also submitted an undertaking to follow certain procedures, with regard to the various issues and to provide certain facilities, as required by the students and the staff of the Institute. 20. By a communication, dated 13.2.2009, the fourth respondent University had informed the petitioner Institute that an enquiry committee would visit the Institute, on 23.2.2009, to enquire into the facts regarding the eligibility and genuineness of the faculty members who had handled the classes during the academic year 2008- 2009. It was also informed that in addition the said Committee could also verify the complaints received from the parents and the students of the petitioner Institute, regarding the lack of facilities. It was also stated that the Committee would also verify the availability of the adequacy of basic amenities such as transport, drinking water, toilets, canteens etc., the fine imposed for lack of attendance and for other reasons, the laboratory facilities, hostel facilities for the students, including the lady students and the generator facility. Thereafter, the visit of the enquiry committee was re-scheduled to 25.2.2009. 21. Thereafter, by a communication, dated 17.3.2009, it was informed that an Inspection Committee would visit the petitioner Institute to verify the deficiencies pointed out earlier and the continued fulfilment of the requirements for the programmes offered by the petitioner Institute as per the noms and standards, curricula and syllabi of the fourth respondent University, with regard to the provisional affiliation already granted for the previous academic year 2008-2009, and for the consideration of granting of provisional/permanent affiliation for the existing programmes and for the additional programmes/variation in the intake of the students in the existing programmes, subject to the fulfillment of statutory requirement for the academic year 2009-2010. 22. Thereafter, a show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, had been issued to the petitioner Institute asking the management of the petitioner Institute to submit an explanation for the various aspects https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ noted therein. On 12.5.2009, a reply had been issued by the petitioner Institute to the said show cause notice explaining in detail, the reasons and the steps taken by the petitioner Institute for rectifying the defects pointed out by the Inspection team. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner Institute and without giving proper reasons, the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, had been issued by the fourth respondent informing the petitioner Institute that the continuation of affiliation for the programmes mentioned therein are suspended and the admission of students in the said programmes are stopped from the academic year 2009-2010. Further, it was informed that the petitioner Institute should not admit students for the said programmes for the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. 23. With regard to the communication of the fourth respondent University, dated 18.8.2008, relating to certain deficiencies in B.Tech (Information Technology) and M.B.A (Business Administration) a compliance report, dated 30.8.2008, had been sent by the petitioner Institute to the fourth respondent University. Thereafter, several communications had been received from the fourth respondent University stating that an Inspection Committee would visit the petitioner Institute to verify the rectifications of the deficiencies, in respect of the academic programmes concerned. However, by a communication, dated 30.12.2008, the fourth respondent University had asked the petitioner Institute to submit its explanation, with regard to the impersonation of some faculty members on the day of the inspection by the Committee, on 5.12.2008. However, no details had been furnished in the said communication. Thereafter, the petitioner Institute had submitted a detailed explanation, on 12.1.2009. 24. By a communication, dated 13.2.2009, the fourth respondent had informed the petitioner Institute that an Enquiry Committee, which had been constituted, based on the resolution of the Syndicate, would visit the petitioner Institute on 23.2.2009 to enquire into the facts regarding the eligibility and genuineness of the faculty members, who had handled the classes during the academic year 2008- 2009 and that it would also verify the complaints received from the parents and the students of petitioner Institute, with regard to the lack of facilities and amenities in the Institute. Even in the said communication no details, including the names of the persons who had impersonated, had been given. Only in the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth respondent University, the details regarding the impersonation had been given. On receipt of the show cause notice a detailed explanation had been submitted by the petitioner Institute, on 12.5.2009. Thereafter, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner Institute and without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner Institute to explain the matter, the fourth respondent University had passed the impugned order, dated 9.6.2009, suspending the affiliation for the programmes mentioned therein and directing the petitioner Institute not to admit students to the said programmes for the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. The said impugned order of the fourth respondent, dated 9.6.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 25. Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent University had submitted that the show cause notice, dated 29.4.2009, issued by the fourth respondent University, had contained three main charges based on which action was proposed to be initiated against the petitioner Institute. The charges alleged against the petitioner Institute, the explanation submitted by the said Institute for the said charges and the decision taken by the fourth respondent University thereon, should be read together. As such, there are no discrepancies in the impugned order of the fourth respondent University, dated 9.6.2009, as alleged by the petitioner Institute. As long as the action taken by the fourth respondent University and the punishment imposed