AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. R. Yashod Vardhan, the learned senior counsel for Mr. M. Govindaraj, the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners, Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned Senior counsel for M/s. Satish Parasaran, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first and
ninth respondents, Ms. A.V. Bharathi, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent University, Mr.S.Udayakumar, the learned Senior
Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents, Mr. T. Murugesan, the learned Government Pleader for
Puducherry, appearing for the third and sixth respondents, Mr. P.R. Gopinathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent, Mr.
R. Singaravelan, the learned Counsel appearing for the eighth respondent and Mr. V. Raghavachari, the learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents 10 to 124.
The brief facts of the case, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are as follows:
The first respondent Institute was established in the year 2005. It was informed that the first respondent had obtained permission from the 4th
respondent for running a medical college with an annual intake of 150 students from the academic session 2006-2007, vide proceedings No.
U12021/249/2005-ME (P-II), dated 5.6.2006. The sixth respondent had issued proceedings No. 27206/H5/2006/Health, dated 13.7.2006,
addressed to the third respondent with the direction to sponsor 75 students for admission in the M.B.B.S. Course in the first respondent Institute.
The selected students were provisionally admitted to the first respondent Institute subject to the affiliation from the Pondicherry University. All the
75 students sponsored by the third respondent had joined the first respondent Institute by 11.09.2006.
In spite of the fact that the petitioners had the required attendance for the first year M.B.B.S. Course, they were not issued the hall tickets by the
second respondent university for taking the examinations. However, similarly placed persons like the petitioners, who had joined the other medical
colleges in Pondicherry, were permitted to write the examinations by issuing of hall tickets and the examination time table. By an order, dated
23.5.2007, passed by this Court in M.P. No. 1 of 2007, in W.P. No. 18654 of 2007, filed by the Parents'' Association of the first respondent
college, the petitioners had been permitted to write the examinations, held between 4.6.2007 and 12.06.2007, at the Pondicherry University.
Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have written the theory examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University. However, in the counter
affidavit, dated 11.6.2007, filed by the first respondent in the said writ petition, it was stated that the first respondent Institute had been brought
under the ambit of the 9th respondent Institute, namely, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, which is said to be a
Deemed University, u/s 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
As regards the examinations in respect of the students admitted for the academic year 2006-2007, the first respondent was to approach the
Pondicherry University from which the consent of affiliation was obtained or the 9th respondent Deemed University may hold the first year
examinations subject to all the regulations and guidelines of the Medical Council of India and with the ''no objection'' order from the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare. Therefore, the petitioners were under the impression that the first respondent Institute would approach the Pondicherry
University for affiliation. However, the first respondent Institute had refused to apply for the necessary permission to undergo the practical
examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University, the second respondent herein. By the Notification NO. F.9-47/2005-U.3, dated
4.6.2007, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the fifth respondent, had declared the first respondent Institute as
a constituent college of the 9th respondent Deemed University.
Paragraph-5 of the notification allowed the first respondent Institute as an off-campus centre of the 9th respondent University for the purpose of
the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, subject to the conditions prescribed in the said notification. Paragraph-7 of the notification had
stated that as regards the examination of students already enrolled with SLNIMS for the academic year 2006-07, the SLNIMS may approach the
university from which consent for affiliation was obtained by them prior to admitting these students, or the BIHER may hold 1st year examination
for the already enrolled students subject to the condition that all regulations and guidelines of the Medical Council of India are followed and the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has no objection.
In paragraph-8 of the notification, it was stated that the declaration was subject to further conditions as mentioned in Serial No. 6 of the
endorsement annexed to the said notification. In Clause (e) of serial No. 6 of the endorsement, it is stated that BIHER shall award degrees in
respect of the courses run by SLNIMS only to those students who are admitted/enrolled with SLNIMS subsequent to the date of the notification.
While so, the petitioners had approached the first respondent Institute to conduct the practical examinations, since the petitioners had already
written the theory examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University. However, the first respondent Institute had refused to take steps to
obtain the permission needed for the petitioners to take the practical examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University and it had also
compelled the students, by threats and coercion, to sign a registration form for the undergraduate course under the 9th respondent University. The
petitioners have been threatened with dire consequences if the matter was pursued further. Even though the students were made to believe that the
affiliation had been accorded to the first respondent Institute from the year 2006, it has been done only from the academic year 2007-2008. It is
only due to the deliberate non-co-operation of the first respondent Institute, the second respondent University could not grant the necessary
affiliation.
By a notification published in the tamil newspaper ""Dhinamalar"" it was learnt that, by a notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the Central
Government, the first respondent Institute was affiliated to Bharath University as its constituent college, from the academic year 2006-2007.
However, it was noticed that the notification issued in the tamil daily was contrary to the notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the Central
Government. In such circumstances, the petitioners have been requesting that they may be allowed to pursue their medical course in the first
respondent Institute, under the Pondicherry University or in any other institution affiliated to the Pondicherry University. At the time when the
petitioners were admitted in the first respondent Institute, for the medical course commencing with the academic year 2006-2007, the first
respondent Institute had been affiliated to the Pondicherry University. Since the petitioners had been admitted against the seats surrendered to the
Government, as per an agreement, the allocation was done only on the basis that the first respondent Institute will continue to be affiliated to the
Pondicherry University. Thus, it is not open to the first respondent to direct the students to continue their medical course under the 9th respondent
deemed University.
The learned Senior counsel Mr. Yashod Vardhan, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, had submitted that there is a contradiction between
what has been stated in Paragraphs-7 and 8 of the notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India and Clause (e) of Serial No. 6 of the endorsement annexed to the notification. Therefore, there is a serious apprehension that
the 9th respondent University would not be in a position to award the medical degrees to the petitioners as Clause (e) of Serial. No. 6 of the
endorsement states that the 9th respondent University shall award degrees in respect of the courses, run by SLNIMS only to those students who
are admitted/enrolled with SLNIMS subsequent to the date of the notification. Since the petitioners were admitted in the first respondent Institute
for the academic year 2006-2007, prior to the date of the notification, the 9th respondent deemed University would not be in a position to award
the medical degrees to the petitioners at the end of their medical course.
It has been further submitted that by an order of this Court, dated 23.5.2007, made in M.P. No. 1 of 2007, in W.P. No. 18654 of 2007, the
petitioners were permitted to write the theory examinations of their first year medical course under the Pondicherry University and the petitioners
are having a legitimate expectation that they would be permitted to take the practical examinations also under the Pondicherry University. It is only
due to the non-co-operation of the first respondent Institute no affiliation had been granted by the Pondicherry University. The petitioners cannot
be made to suffer due to the default committed by the first respondent Institute. It has also been submitted that the petitioners may not get the
continued sponsorship of the Government of Puducherry if they are not continuing their medical course under the Pondicherry University.
Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the first and ninth respondents had submitted that the petitioners
constitute only a small group of students out of the 150 students, who were admitted during the academic year 2006-2007 for undergoing the 1st
year M.B.B.S. Course in the first respondent Institute which has now become a constituent of the ninth respondent Deemed University. The reliefs
sought for by the petitioners are wholly misconceived and it is an abuse of the process of Court.
The learned Counsel had further submitted that the first respondent College had started functioning from the academic year 2006-2007 with
the approval of the Central Government, on the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India, with an annual intake of 150 students.
Since a proposal to bring Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences under the ambit of Bharath Institute of Higher Education and
Research, the ninth respondent herein, was pending consideration with the University Grants Commission and the Central Government, the first
respondent Institute did not effectively pursue the proposal for the grant of provisional affiliation, for the year 2006-2007, from the Pondicherry
University which had originally granted the consent for affiliation. As the cut-off date for admission for the academic year 2006-2007 was to expire
on 30.9.2006, the first respondent, after obtaining orders from this Court, had admitted 75 students under the Management category and 75
students from the Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) at the special request of the Puducherry Government. Thereafter, regular classes
for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course, for the academic year 2006-2007, had started from 1.10.2006.
The learned Counsel had further submitted that by a notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the fifth respondent, the first respondent Institute
was brought under the ambit of the ninth respondent Deemed University, with effect from the date of the notification. However, taking note of the
admission of the students without affiliation for 2006-2007, the Central Government had directed that the first respondent may approach the
Pondicherry University, from which the consent of the affiliation was obtained, for affiliation or the ninth respondent Deemed University may hold
the 1st year examination for the students admitted during the year 2006-2007, subject to all the regulations and guidelines of the Medical Council
of India. While so, the Pondicherry University had announced that the 1st year examinations for its affiliated Collages would commence from
4.6.2007. At that stage, an unrecognised Association called the Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences Parents'' Association had filed
a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 18654 of 2007, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent Institute to expedite the
process of affiliation with the Pondicherry University and to direct the said University to complete the process of affiliation within a stipulated
period. The petitioners had also prayed for permission to write the examinations for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course conducted by the Pondicherry
University to be held between 4.6.2007 and 12.6.2007. By an order, dated 23.5.2007, made in M.P. No. 1 of 2007, this Court had permitted
the students to write the examinations with the direction to withhold the publication of the results.
It was further submitted that the Pondicherry University had no authority to hold the examinations for the students of an Institution which had
not been affiliated by it and such examinations would have no legal consequence in the light of the law declared by the various Courts of law,
including the Supreme Court. Even before the commencement of the examination, the Pondicherry University had rejected the request for affiliation
from the first respondent Institute by its communication, dated 15.5.2007. 89 students out of 150 students who had joined the Course, as well as
the Government of Pondicherry, had contended that the said writ petition was without merits and unsustainable in law. The writ petition in W.P.
No. 18654 of 2007, was dismissed by an order of this Court, dated 2.7.2007.
It was further submitted that since the Pondicherry University had rejected the request for affiliation made by the first respondent Institute and
also for the reason that the first respondent Institute had become a part of the ninth respondent Deemed University, the reliefs sought for by the
petitioners cannot be granted. Further, it is not open to the petitioners to seek the reliefs based either on the principle of Estoppel or on the
principle of Legitimate Expectation as their claims are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India.
However, the learned Counsel had submitted that the ninth respondent Deemed University is willing to conduct both the theory as well as the
practical examinations for the petitioners as well as the other students of the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the academic year 2006-2007, in spite
of the fact that they had already written the examinations conducted by Pondicherry University, based on the orders passed by this Court in M.P.
No. 1 of 2007 in W.P. No. 18654 of 2007.
It was further submitted that the ninth respondent Deemed University is also willing to conduct supplementary examinations to accommodate
the students of the first respondent Institute, based on a specific request made in that regard since the examinations, written by the students of the
first respondent Institute under the Pondicherry University, cannot be said to be valid as it is not in accordance with the established principles of
law.
Ms. A.V. Bharathi, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent University, had submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable
in law, since the writ petitioners have no locus standi to seek the affiliation from the second respondent University. The request for affiliation made
by the first respondent Institute for the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007 had been rejected by the second respondent
University by its proceedings, dated 15.5.2007. The first respondent Institute was neither interested nor inclined to pursue its application for
affiliation for the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007. In fact, the first respondent Institute had prevented the second respondent
University from conducting an inspection of the Institute, on 17.10.2006. Thereafter, on 23.2.2007, the first respondent Institute had requested the
second respondent University for inspection of the Institute for the purpose of granting of affiliation. Since the request by the first respondent
Institute was belated, the said request could not be processed further.
It was further submitted that the admission of the students made by the first respondent Institute for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course for the
academic year 2006-2007 is by itself illegal as it was done without obtaining the necessary affiliation. However, the second respondent University
had permitted the students to write the examinations of the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course, held in the month of June, 2007, based on the order passed
by this Court, on 23.5.2007, in M.P. No. 1 of 2007 in W.P. No. 18654 of 2007. Later, the said writ petition had been dismissed by this Court by
an order, dated 2.7.2007.
It was further submitted that the first respondent Institute had not taken any legal recourse for its affiliation for the academic year 2006-2007. It
is only the Parents'' Association which had approached this Court for a direction based on which the students had taken the written examination
conducted by the Pondicherry University. The practical examinations could not be conducted, since the first respondent Institute did not co-
operate with the second respondent University in that regard. In such circumstances, the claims made by the petitioners cannot be sustained.
Further, by a notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, in Notification No. 9-47/2005-U.3,
dated 4.6.2007, the first respondent Institute has been brought under the ambit of the ninth respondent Deemed University.
Mr. T. Murugesan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third and sixth respondents, had submitted that the first respondent Institute
was established, after having obtained the necessary permission from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, with an
annual intake of 150 students for the academic year 2006-2007. The Centralized Admission Committee (CENTAC) had been requested to
sponsor 75 students to the first respondent Institute for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the academic year 2006-2007. The Committee had also
sponsored 75 students under the Government quota. The Government of Puducherry had provided Rs. 1,50,000/- to each of the students
sponsored by the Centralized Admission Committee, under the Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Financial Assistance Scheme.
It was also submitted that the Public Relation Officer of the first respondent Institute had executed an undertaking stating that they would seek
affiliation from the Pondicherry University and that they would clarify the admission policy for the proposed Medical Institute and that they would
also allocate 50% of the seats in the proposed Medical Institute for the students of Puducherry as sponsored by the Government of Puducherry.
As per the said conditions, the first respondent Institute had allotted 50% of the seats for the Government Quota for the academic year 2006-
2007.
It was also submitted that as per the notification of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, dated 4.6.2007, the
students already enrolled with the first respondent Institute, for the academic year 2006-2007, were entitled to continue their course only under the
Pondicherry University.
Mr. V. Raghavachari, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 10 to 124 had submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners
is not maintainable, as it has no merits and it is a gross abuse of the process of law.
He had further submitted that even those students of the first respondent Institute, who were not in support of the writ petition in W.P. No.
18654 of 2007, filed by the Parents'' Association, had been coerced to write the examinations, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on
23.5.2007, even though they were not sufficiently prepared. Many of the students had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appearing in the
examinations.
It was also submitted that the Pondicherry University was not the proper University under which the students could write the examinations,
after the first respondent Institute had been notified to be an off-campus centre of the ninth respondent Deemed University. As such the petitioners
have no right to demand that the second respondent University should conduct the examinations for the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the academic
year 2006-2007.
It was also submitted that a large number of students had already taken the written examinations under the ninth respondent Deemed
University, pursuant to the notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the fifth respondent. By an order, dated 15.5.2007, the second respondent
University had declined to grant affiliation to the first respondent Institute, based on the resolution of the Academic Council of the University. In
such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Mr. S. Udayakumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents, had submitted that the present writ petition has been
filed by the writ petitioner only on a mere apprehension that the ninth respondent Deemed University will not be in a position to grant the Medical
Degrees for the students of the first respondent Institute, who were admitted to the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2006-2007.
In paragraph 7 of the notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the fifth re spondent, it is stated that as regards the examination of students
already enrolled with the first respondent Institute for the academic year 2006-2007, the said Institute may approach the second respondent
University from which consent for affiliation was obtained prior to admitting the students. In the alternative, the ninth respondent Deemed University
may hold the 1st year examination for the already enrolled students subject to the condition that all regulations and guidelines of the Medical
Council of India are followed and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has no objection. Paragraph 8 of the notification stipulates that the
declaration is subject to further conditions as mentioned in Serial No. 6 of the endorsement of the notification. In Clause (e) of Serial No. 6 of the
endorsement of the said notification, it has been stated that the ninth respondent Deemed University shall award degrees in respect of the courses
run by the first respondent Institute only to those students who are admitted/enrolled with the said Institute subsequent to the date of the
notification.
The learned Counsel had also submitted that the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners are ill-founded as it is clear that on a conjoint
reading of the various paragraphs contained in the notification as well as the clauses of the endorsement of the notification the only meaning that
could emerge is that the first respondent Institute would be an off-campus centre of the ninth respondent Deemed University, which would be
empowered to conduct the examinations for the M.B.B.S. Students of the first respondent University, who had been admitted during the academic
2006-2007, and also to grant them the Medical Degrees on their successful completion of the course. It was further submitted that there are no
legal or other impediments for the ninth respondent Deemed University to grant the Medical Degrees to all the eligible candidates who had
completed their medical course.
Based on the submissions made by Mr. S. Udayakumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents, it is clear that the
petitioners cannot be justified in entertaining the apprehension that the ninth respondent Deemed University will not be in a position to grant the
Medical Degrees to the eligible candidates who would be successfully completing their Medical Course in the first respondent Institute. If the
petitioners require any further clarification, it is open to them to approach the concerned authorities with their specific requests. Therefore, this
Court does not find sufficient reason to quash the second part of paragraph 7 of the notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the fifth respondent.
Further, there cannot be a direction issued to the first respondent Institute to pursue the application for affiliation with the second respondent
University in view of the submission made by the petitioners that the first respondent Institute is not interested in pursuing such a claim. It is also
seen, from the records available before this Court, that the request made by the first respondent Institute for affiliation to the second respondent
University has been rejected by the second respondent University by its proceedings, dated 15.5.2007. It has also been brought to the notice of
this Court that the said rejection had not been challenged by the first respondent Institute in accordance with the procedures established by law.
Further, by a notification, dated 4.6.2007, issued by the fifth respondent, the first respondent Institute has been declared to be an off-campus
centre of the ninth respondent University. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reasons or cause to direct the first respondent Institute to
pursue its request for affiliation to the second respondent University. Nor would it be appropriate for this Court to direct the third and sixth
respondents to reallocate the petitioners to the other Institutions affiliated to the second respondent University, at this stage. Further,
Mr.N.R.Chandran, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first and ninth respondents had made it clear that the ninth respondent Deemed
University is willing to conduct the necessary examinations for the benefit of the students of the 1st year M.B.B.S. Course of the first respondent
Institute for the academic year 2006-2007.
In such circumstances, this Court is not sufficiently persuaded by the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners to grant the reliefs as
prayed for in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2007 are also
dismissed.