Lord Venkateshwara Engineering v. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 6.11.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.NO.17293 OF 2015 Lord Venkateshwara Engineering College, represented by its Chairman G.Kesav Yada, Puliambakkam, Kancheepuram District ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai 600 025.

2. The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institution, Anna University, Chennai-25.

.. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in LR No.275/CAI-Deficit colleges/AU/15 dated 15.05.2015 issued by 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and an error on the face of the record and direct the respondents to give affiliation to the petitioner as per the sanction in letter dated 07.04.2015 granted by AICTE. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy , Senior Counsel for Mr. A. Jenasenan For Respondents : Mr. M. Vijayakumar ( for R1 and R2) Standing counsel

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in LR No.275/CAI-Deficit colleges/AU/15 dated 15.05.2015 issued by 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and an error on the face of the record and direct the respondents to give affiliation to the petitioner as per the sanction in letter dated 07.04.2015 granted by AICTE.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is an existing college for which approval has been given by the AICTE for the academic year 20152016 for the named courses both Under Graduate and Post Graduate Divisions. A show cause notice was given on 20.4.2015 by the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner has not complied with the norms. The impugned order was passed on 15.5.2015 after consideration of the compliance report of the petitioner dated 29.4.2015.

4. In the impugned order, the intake sanctioned for the courses is reduced as they have not reached the criteria and norms evolved for the academic year 2015-2016. The following are the details of intake for the courses in petitioner's college;

Sl No.

Degree Courses Sanctioned Intake 2014-15 AICTE Sanction ed Intake 2015-16 Anna Universit y Sanctione d Intake 2015-16 1.

B.E.

Civil Engineering B.E.

Computer Science and Engineering 3.

B.E.

Electrical and Electronics Engineering

4. B.E.

Electronics and Communication Engineering 5.

B.E.

Mechanical Engineering 6.

B.Tech.

Information Technology 7.

M.B.A.

Master of Business Administration No Admission M.C.A Master of Computer Application Challenging the said order,the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. Pending Writ Petition, this Court passed an order directing the respondent to have a re-inspection. A reinspection was conducted on 14.8.2015 and pursuant to the same, re-inspection report has been filed before this Court on 25.8.2015. The re-inspection report also shows certain deficiencies in the petitioner's college. The following are the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents in their reinspection report; Name of the College Cours e Course name Facu lty Libra ry Labo rator y Clas s Roo m Prin cipa l Lord Venkatesh waraa Engineering College B.E.

Civil Engineering B.E.

Computer Science and Engineering l i g i b l e B.E.

Electrical and Electronics Engineering B.E.

Electronics and Communicati on Engineering B.E. Mechanical Engineering B.

Tech.

Information Technology M.B.A .

Master of Business Administrat ion M.C.A .

Master of Computer Application s

6. The agenda and minutes of the respondents produced by the learned counsel for the respondents speaks about the criteria followed qua-deficiencies ;

Category Criteria A.

Deficiency in Faculty Overall < 25%, Library < 25%, Laboratory < 25% and Class rooms < 20% Existing Courses B.

Deficiency in Faculty Overall 25-35%, Library 25-50%, Laboratory 25-50% and Class rooms < 20% C.

Deficiency in (any of the category) Faculty Overall > 35%, Library > 50%, Laboratory > 50% and Class rooms > 20%.

7. Accordingly, criteria has been assigned, based upon which, action has been recommended uniformly to all the institutes in the following manner;

Courses Grade Recommended Action After receipt of Inspection Report After verification of Compliance Report 50% reduction in intake 25% reduction in intake U 25% reduction in intake PG No admission status for the Courses

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner primarily contended that there is no power or authority that lies with the respondents to reduce the intake as the field is occupied by the Central Legislation. Thus only AICTE has got power and even assuming that there are certain deficiencies, the only course open to the respondent is to point out the same to the said Central

Authorities and to substantiate the same, reliance has been made on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 231 (Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department).

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that even otherwise, as per the re-inspection report and the norms that are being followed by the respondents as seen from their agenda and minutes referred above, except for Civil Engineering, for all other courses including Post Graduate Courses, the petitioner would come under the category 'B' and therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained to that effect and at best the respondents can reduce the intake accordingly.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has to be applied to the facts of this case. It is a case of affiliation. Inspection was done to verify the compliance of the norms fixed by AICTE. Thus the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 385 (Parshavanth Charitable Trust and others Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others) has to be complied with. He has further submitted that the reinspection report cannot be the basis.

11. Coming to the legal issues involved, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the decision reported in (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 231 (Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department) would not have any application, since it has to be understood in the context in which it has been stated. In other words, there is no question of affiliation by the respondents involved therein, as the role of the University was very much limited.

12. On a perusal of the regulation governing the courses, the respondents are well within their powers to take appropriate action including the redemption of seats based upon the factual premise that the norms fixed by AICTE have not been complied with. Thus the regulation for grant of affiliation itself provides for such a power.

13. The only question is on the application of doctrine of proportionality which has been accepted by the Courts in India by adopting it as an improvement of doctrine of unreasonableness. There is no dispute on facts before us. Except the course of Civil Engineering, the petitioner would certainly come under the purview of Category 'B'. Having

seen the norms prescribed, re-inspection has been ordered by this Court in view of the dispute raised. As it was done by the respondent University, there is no dispute on that. This Court can safely rely upon the decisions cited for molding the relief sought for.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands ordered by setting aside the order impugned. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders by making 25 % reduction in the sanctioned intake made by the AICTE for all the courses except B.E., Civil Engineering and in sofaras for B.E., Civil Engineering is concerned, the respondents can pass an order deducting 50% intake as only 'C' grade has been achieved for the said course. Appropriate orders will have to be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.

sd/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CS-IV) /TRUE COPY/ SUB-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR msr To

1. The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai 600 025.

2. The Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institution, Anna University, Chennai-25.

+1 CC to MR.A. Jenasenan Advocate. SR.NO. 61706 +1 CC to MR.Vijayakumar Advocate. SR.NO. 61851 W.P.No.17293 of 2015 AR-IV JD 23/11/2015