Kongunadu Arts and Science College vs The Registrar, Bharathiar University

S. Sirpurkar, J.—For convenience, we take the facts in W.A. No. 397. The facts in W.A. No. 398 are common.

The Appellant before us is an Arts and Science College. It wanted autonomous status. The procedure for granting the autonomous status is reflected in the guidelines for that purpose issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi.

We are concerned with paragraph 7 of those guidelines. Those guidelines suggest that it will be the University which will form a Standing Committee including a representative of the State Council of Higher Education or of the State Government. Then the University will invite proposals from the colleges which claim to have the necessary infrastructure for being conferred the autonomous status. Under Clause 7(b), the proposals given by the colleges in pursuance of such invitation would be then placed before the Standing committee and the Standing Committee would then visit the colleges and discuss the proposals with the respective managements, faculty members and the students also. Under Clause 7(c), these recommendations have to be forwarded to the State Government by the University. On receipt of the State Government''s recommendations, the University would send the recommendations of both the University and the State Government to the University Grants Commission and ultimately the University Grants Commission would consider the proposals for conferment of autonomy upon the colleges under Clause 7(d). It is obvious that it is only with the consent of the University Grants Commission, the University would confer the autonomous status. The University would notify the conferment of autonomy upon the colleges concerned, initially for a period of five years, after obtaining the concurrence of the University Grants Commission.

What happened in this case was, when the Appellant college made a proposal, it seems that the Syndicate of the University passed a resolution, which is extracted here under:

Resolved that Standing Committee on Autonomous Colleges be sent to college, after the college gets 4 star status of accreditation from N.A.C.

[emphasis supplied]

The Registrar has informed this resolution to the Appellant college. The Appellant college felt aggrieved by this pre-condition of getting Four Star status of the accreditation from NAAC (National Accreditation Assessment Council) for the visit of the Standing Committee to the college under Clause 7 (d) (as emphasized) and filed two writ petitions. Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were also filed seeking the stay of the aforementioned condition and a direction to form a Standing Committee for forwarding the proposal to Government and to the University Grants Commission in a time frame.

Learned single Judge has directed the notice to be sent to the University, but refused to stay this condition, and rejected both the W.M. Ps and that is how these appeals have arisen.

With the consent of the parties, we would deal with the writ petitions as they can be disposed off at this stage itself.

In the first place, when we see that scheme of Clause 7, which prescribes the procedure for conferment of autonomous status, we do not see any necessity of having the 4 Star status as a pre-condition for making an application for the autonomous status. It may be that the Four Star status may be necessary ultimately for the grant of autonomous status. The learned Counsel for the Appellant does not have any dispute with this proposition. His only contention is, that stage will come much later. Initially however, the Standing Committee must visit the college and discuss the proposals with the respective managements, faculty members and students. The learned Counsel also has no objection even if the Standing Committee, in its report, points out that the college had not got the Four Star status. The learned Counsel says that it would be ultimately either for the State Government or for the University Grants Commission or both to consider this aspect of the matter and then to agree to the conferment of the autonomous status on the institution or not. We think the submission is quite justified.

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chinnasamy, appearing on behalf of the University, however points out that the grant of the 4 Star status of N.A.A.C., is a condition precedent before the autonomous status can be granted to any institution. We have absolutely no quarrel with this proposition. However, the acquisition of Four Star status cannot be made a condition precedent even at the stage when the Standing Committee is to visit the college to see the viability of the grant of such conferment, which is practically the first step towards the exercise of consideration for conferment of autonomous status.

In our opinion, therefore, the Syndicate could not have insisted upon the acquisition of Four Star status even before a visit by the Standing Committee was materialised by the University. Since we have considered the main question involved in the writ petition, we would direct the University to send the said Standing Committee for the inspection of the institution, without insisting on the acquisition of Four Star status from NAAC We however make it clear that it will be open for the University and or the Standing Committee to consider this question of a Four Star status while it makes a report to the State Government and or to the University Grants Commission. With this, the writ petitions stand decided. We therefore dispose of the writ petitions also, while allowing these writ appeals. The University will be well advised to send the said team of Standing Committee to the concerned college within three months from today without insisting on the acquisition of Four Star status for the Petitioner. With these observations, the writ appeals are allowed and the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. Nos. 3047 and 3048 of 2001 are closed.