AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—Meenakshi College for Women represented by its Principal has filed this Writ petition for issue of a mandamus directing the
University of Madras, the first respondent herein, to confer autonomous status for the petitioner college, based on the report of the Second
Inspection Commission headed by Justice P. Venugopal (Retd., for a period of five years from the current academic year 1989-90 after getting the
concurrence of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Chairman, University Grants Commission, respondents 2 and 3 herein.
The petitioner college was started in the year 1975-76 and is affiliated to the first respondent University. At present, it is having nine under-
graduate courses and seven post-graduate courses plus M.C.A. Course. It has been adopting the curriculum issued by the University and following
the University Syllabus. By a communication dated 21-3-1989, the University informed the petitioner of the launching of a programme of
autonomous Colleges"" and its contemplation to invite applications from affiliated colleges which wish to be considered for autonomous status.
Much reliance is placed on this communication by the petition and it is worthwhile to extract the relevant portions thereof:
You will be interested to know that this University is contemplating inviting applications from its affiliated colleges which wish to be considered for
autonomous status. Briefly, this status involves freedom for the selected colleges to experiment and innovate with regard to its curriculum, methods
of teaching and learning and conduct of examinations, while degrees are conferred by the University. This status will be for an initial period of five
years but a review would be undertaken after three years by the University and the University Grants Commission.
The conferment of. autonomous status on a college itself will not entitle a college to any extra financial privileges. The extra assistance arising out of
autonomy would be only marginal and related to the special academic programmes developed by such colleges. You may wish to consult your
Board of Management in arriving at a decision as to whether your college should be considered for the autonomous status.
The college which wishes to come under autonomous status should be an affiliated college of this University having not less than Ten years of
standing and accorded permanent affiliation.
The college should also pay to the University a fee of Rs.5000 (Rupees Five thousand only) along with the application, which is not refundable.
The fee may be sent through a State Bank of India Demand Draft drawn in favour of ''THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS,
MADRAS -600005''.
A copy of the ""UGC Revised Guidelines on Autonomous Colleges (1986)"" and a Questionnaire annexure- I and II) to be filled in by the College
are also sent herewith. The details as required in the Questionnaire should be sent to the University in a booklet form (30 copies) for consideration.
I shall be glad to receive detailed proposals/ application from your college in this regard so as to reach this office on or before 7th April, 1989 for
consideration by the University; otherwise, it will be construed that the College is not willing to come under the autonomous status.
Though the communication specified 7th April, 1989 as the last date for receipt of proposals/application from the college, the latter replied only
by a letter dated 26-5-1989. It was stated in that letter that the delay was due to the fact that the Committee of Management could meet only on
24th April, 1989 and give its consent for asking autonomous status for the College. It was stated that the College would be accordingly applying
for autonomy with effect from the academic year 1989-90 for all the courses conducted in that college, and the detailed particulars in the
prescribed questionnaires are under preparation and would be sent to the University shortly. A request was made to include the College in the list
of Colleges to be considered by the University for conferring autonomous status is that year. The copies of the proposals were actually received by
the University on 5.6.1989 without any covering letter or theprescribed fee of Rs. 5000. By letter dated 12th June, 1989, the University pointed
out the same to the college. A reply was sent by the College on 21-6-1989 alongwith a demand draft of Rs.5000 towards the prescribed fees and
a copy of the covering letter.
The University appointed an Inspection Commission comprising of five persons including the Director of Collegiate Education and by
communication date 27.6.1989 requested the Commission to make an inspection and report on the matters set out therein. The inspection was
held on 14.7.1989 and the Commission made a recommendation that autonomy could be granted to the College provisionally for this year (1989-
90) in respect of the under-graduate and post-graduate course run by them and suggested another Inspection Commission to be sent immediately
before the commencement of the next Academic year to review and report to the Syndicate as to whether the autonomy could be continued. The
University, after accepting the report of the Commission, sought the concurrence of the State Government The Government passed G.O. Ms. No.
1595, Education (H.2) Department, dated 7.11.1989 accepting the recommendation of the University of Madras and according their concurrence
for conferring autonomous status to the College provisionally for the academic year 1989-90 only. But, when the concurrence of the University
Grants Commission was sought by the University, the Commission by its communication dated 15.11.1989 regretted its inability to give
concurrence to the proposal as the U.G.C. Guidelines did not suggest year to year autonomy, but for a period of five years as a term to be
reviewed after the third year. Hence, the Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 30.11.1989 resolved to send a fresh inspection
commission to verify whether the college is suitable for being given autonomy for five years. Accordingly, a fresh Commission was nominated and a
communication was sent to the members of the Commission on 30.12.1989. A retired Judge of this Court viz., Justice P. Venugopal was
appointed as Convener and a member of the Commission. The Commission inspected the College on 3.2.1990 and submitted a report to the
University that the college is suitable for being given autonomy for five years from the current academic year. The Syndicate of the University in its
meeting held on 17.2.1990 resolved to recommend the application of the College for grant of autonomy to the State Government and the U.G.C.
for a period of five years from the academic year 1990-91 as per the guidelines of the U.G.C. subject to the following conditions being fulfilled by
the College:
(i) the college should have the full compliment of qualified full-time teaching staff (approved by the University) for all the courses for which
autonomy is sought
(ii) the rules relating to reservation of seats during admission for SC/STs. MBCs, BCs & Others (that are in force) should be strictly followed by
the College
(iii) the communal roster should be strictly followed in the matter of appointments of staff
(iv) Hostel, adequate class rooms and proper playground facilities should be provided for the students
(v) the college should not club the Day and Evening Classes for teaching purposes
(vi) the deficiencies pointed out in the Justice Venugopal (Retd.) Inspection Commission report should be rectified.
Before any communication was sent by the University to the College about the resolution passed by the Syndicate on 17.2.1990, the Principal
of College approached the Chairman of the University Grants Commission at New Delhi on 20.2.1990 and informed him that the Second
Inspection Commission headed by Justice Venugopal recommended the grant of autonomy for five years from the current academic year. It
appears that the Principal handed over a copy of the report of the said Commission to the Chairman of the University Grants Commission. The
Chairman of the U.G.C. wrote a letter D.O. No. F.24-3/87(NFE) dated February 21, 1990 to the Vice Chancellor of University of Madras with
a copy marked to the Special Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department and also handed over a
copy thereof to the Principal of the petitioner college. The letter refers to the Principal meeting the Chairman of the U.G.C. and handing over copy
of the report of the Inspection Commission. The letter also refers to a telephonic conversation between the Chairman of the U.G.C. and the Vice-
Chancellor of the University and the latter having assured him that the Syndicate of the University had agreed to grant autonomy for five years but
starting from the next session. Last two paragraphs of the letter read as follows:
(e) We were informed by the Principal that this year''s teaching to the first year graduate and post graduate students have been done on the
assumption that the College would have had an autonomous status, and so the students would be examined accordingly. Considering all these
aspects and assuming that the Syndicate and the government concurrence is definitely available on the aspects mentioned above, the University
Grants Commission is prepared to grant autonomy to this college from the current year itself and this would be for a period of five academic years.
If this is agreeable, please proceed on this basis and make sure that we receive both the University Concurrence and the Government of Tamilnadu
concurrence.
Armed with the said letter, the petitioner has approached this court with this Writ Petition on 7.3.1990.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated in paragraph 3 that the petitioner reliably understands that the Second Inspection
Commission submitted its report and had unanimously recommended the grant of autonomy for the petitioner college from the current academic
year i.e., 1989-90, for five academic years. In paragraph 4 of the same affidavit it is stated the defendant submitted to the Chairman of the
University Grants Commission that the second Inspection Commission headed by Justice P. Venugopal (Retired) had recommended for the grant
of autonomous status for five years. I have already referred to the letter dated 21.2.1990 written by the Chairman of the U.G.C. to the Vice
Chancellor of the university referring to his perusing the report of the Second Inspection Commission. Obviously, it is the Principal of the College
who made the report available to the Chairman of the U.G.C. Yet, in an affidavit sworn to by the principal on 7.3.1990, it is stated as if the
deponent had no personal knowledge of the report or its contents and that the petitioner ""reliably understood"" that the report was in favour of the
College. The affidavit does not disclose as to how the petitioner got hold of a copy of the report which could be placed by its Principal before the
Chairman of the U.G.C.
The entire affidavit proceeds as if the petitioner was not aware as to what exactly the Syndicate decided after the report of the Second
Inspection Commission was submitted. A complaint is made in the affidavit that the petitioner had not so far received any communication from the
University. But, it is clear from the records produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition that the petitioner was quite aware of the
resolution passed by the Syndicate on 17.2.1990. It is quite obvious that the petitioner is being supplied with the relevant records by a member of
the Syndicate or somebody who can have access to the papers of the University. The petitioner has produced in the typed set of papers filed along
with the writ petition a copy of the report of the Second Inspection Commission. It is seen from the said copy that it was a copy circulated to the
members of the Syndicate along with the agenda and notes for the meeting to be held on 17.2.1990. At the top of the copy on the right hand side
(page 18 of the typed-set of papers filed along with the writ petition), the following words and figures are found:
Syndicate : 17.2.90
Item No. 43
Annexure. II
The letter of the Chairman of the U.G.C. dated 21.2.1990 also refers to the Vice-Chancellor''s assurance that the Syndicate had agreed to grant
autonomy for five years from the next Session. Yet, the petitioner pleads ignorance in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to what
exactly had taken place till then, as if the petitioner was completely in the dark.
What is stated above is sufficient for me to refuse to exercise my discretion in favour of the writ petitioner.
Even on the merits, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the relief prayed for in this writ petition. The relevant provisions
as to grant of autonomous status on Colleges are found in Chapter XXVI of the University Calendar, which contains the Statutes. Section 2 of that
Chapter defines an ''Autonomous College'' as ''any college designated as an ''autonomous college'' by Statutes''. Section 3 of that Chapter refers to
the power of the University to designate any College as an autonomous college with the concurrence of the State Government and the U.G.C. in
the manner and under the conditions prescribed and to revoke such designation. The same section refers to the power of the University to confer
degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions on persons who shall have pursued an approved course of study in an autonomous
college. Section 4 empowers the Senate to prescribe in consultation with the Academic Council the manner in which and the conditions subject to
which a College may be designated as an autonomous college and such designation may be revoked. Section 5 enables the Syndicate to designate
any college as an autonomous college with the concurrence of the State Government and the U.G.C. and revoke such designation''. Section 8
enables the Syndicate to confer the status of autonomy on a affiliated college to conduct specified courses of studies subject to certain conditions
set forth in the Chapter. Section 11 provides that an affiliated college may be conferred the status of autonomy for a period not exceeding five
years in the first instance subject to review of the functioning of the college at the end of the third year, and that it shall be competent for the
Syndicate to extend the period beyond five years on an application made by the College. Section 12 empowers the Syndicate to revoke the
autonomy conferred at any time after giving due notice of such intention to the College concerned before the expiry of the period mentioned in
Section 11 in the case of deteriorating standards or for any other good cause. Section 13 provides that notwithstanding the conferment of an
autonomous status on any affiliated college, all provisions of the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations of the University shall be
applicable to the College except those relating to matters specified in the Statute and the University shall continue to exercise its general power of
supervision over such a college. Section 14 of that Chapter reads as follows:
(a) The Syndicate shall decide from time to time on the invitation to the colleges to apply for autonomous status. The proposal may be placed
before the Standing Committee referred to ip sub-statute (b). The Committee, after inspection, shall submit its recommendation to the Vice-
Chancellor. On approval of the recommendation, the name (s) of the college(s) selected for granting autonomy be recommended to the U.G.C./
State Government for concurrence. After the concurrence of the U.G.C./ State Government is obtained, the Syndicate shall decide on conferment
of autonomous status to those college(s).
(b) The Committee referred to in Sub-Statute (a) shall consist of members nominated by the Syndicate including one representative of the U.G.C.
and one representative of the State Government.
Section 15 of that Chapter provides for payment of a fee of Rs. 5000 along with the application for grant of autonomous status. Section 16
enables the Syndicate to make such enquiries as may be necessary with regard to the application for autonomy and in consultation with the State
Government make its decisions on the basis of such enquiries. The Syndicate is also obliged to make a report to the Academic Council and the
Senate on each case of autonomy conferred by it.
The University Grants Commission prepared certain guidelines and had them circulated. In fact, the University forwarded a copy of the
guidelines to the College along with its letter dated 21.3.1989. In paragraph 6 of Chapter I of the guidelines it is stated that the autonomous status
to a college will be conferred by its parent University to which it is affiliated, with the concurrence of the U.G.C. and the concerned State
Government. It is also made clear that the right of autonomy may not be conferred once for all and the exercise of rights on conferment of
autonomous status by a College will however have to be continuously earned and deserved. It is further stated that the status of autonomy may be
granted initially for a period of five years, but a review should be undertaken after three years by the University with the help of a Committee to be
constituted for the purpose. Paragraph 8 in the same Chapter is captioned ""Mechanics for implementation of autonomy at the college level."" As
considerable reliance is placed on the contents of this paragraph by the petitioner, I am extracting the same in full hereunder:
Preparing a College for Autonomy : There are several areas where proper preparation is necessary if college autonomy is to be implemented
successfully. These are : Staff preparation, departmental preparation, ""institutional preparation, preparing the students and the community and so
on. They all should be completed well before autonomy is conferred to a college, so that no part of the college community is found unprepared for
the new responsibility which the college is called upon to shoulder.
Staff Preparation : It is essential to get the entire staff of the college involved in the thinking and planning process for autonomy from the very
beginning, so that they have a sense of participation in the decision making process at every stage of preparation. Every possible step should be
taken to motivate the faculty members towards the concept of college autonomy. This can be done through seminars and workshop sessions to
make them familiar with the objectives and rationale of autonomy.
Departmental Preparation : An important responsibility of the department will be to evolve suitable courses for the major and related subjects,
prepare course materials, revise the courses and bring them up-to-date or modify them in the light of experience and in tune with the changing
needs of society.
Institutional Preparation Since an autonomous college will be called upon to perform many of the functions hitherto done by the University, the
college will have to study the academic, administrative/management and financial implications of such a change-over and prepare itself to discharge
its new functions efficiently.
At the end of the Chapter, sub-paragraph ix of Paragraph 12, which relates to general matters, reads as follows:
ix. The guidelines are suggestive; universities and autonomous college could adopt alternative strategies with a view to achieve the objectives of
autonomy. The idea of autonomy would be better appreciated and implemented in a participatory approach between the State Government,
University, UGC and Autonomous colleges. The Annexures IX to XVI are for information and guidance in this regard.
In the Annexures to the guidelines, recommendations for composition and functions of Board of Management/Governing Body, the Academic
Council, the Board of Studies, the Finance Committee, Planning and Evaluation Committee of autonomous colleges are set out. In so far as the
Madras University is concerned, Statues framed by the University contain the provisions for the Board of Studies, Governing Body and the
Academic Council. Section 9 of Chapter XXVI enjoins an autonomous college to set up Governing Body or Board of Management, Boards of
Studies and Academic Council. Under Clause (e) of Section 9 of the that Chapter, the Governing Body/Board of Management shall consist of
three members to be nominated by the Trust/Management of the College of whom one will be the Chairman, two senior most teachers of the
college to be nominated in rotation according to seniority by the Principal, one nominee of the University not below the rank of Professor, one
nominee of the State Government, one nominee of the U.G.C. and the Principal of the College, besides their own composition. The functions of the
Governing Body are, to lay down service conditions, emoluments, travelling allowances etc., procedure for selection / recruitment of teaching non-
teaching staff, regulation and enforcement of discipline among the members of the staff etc., Under Clause (f) of, Section 9, the Board of Studies
shall consist of (1) Head of the Department of the subject, concerned-Chairman of the College, (2) Head of the Department of the subject in the
University or his nominee, (3) all the teachers in the department having five years of service in the college, (4) two experts in the subject from
outside the college, to be nominated by the Academic Council and (5) one expert to be nominated by the University. The Board of Studies shall
prepare syllabi for various courses keeping in view the objectives of the college and the national requirement for consideration and approval of the
Academic Council, suggest methodologies for innovative teaching and evaluation techniques, suggest panel of names to the Academic Council for
appointment of examiners and to coordinate research, teaching extension and other academic activities in the Department/College.
Under Clause (g) of Section 9 of Chapter XXVI, the constitution of the Academic Council is prescribed and the functions of the Academic
Council are set out in Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (g). It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to refer to them in detail.
Thus, it is seen that the status of autonomy has to be conferred on the college by the Syndicate and it is not a matter of course to be demanded
by any College. Section 14 of that Chapter makes it clear that the final decision shall be taken by the Syndicate of the University after the
concurrence of the U.G.C. and the State Government is obtained. Even after obtaining the concurrence of the State Government and the U.G.C.,
it is certainly open to the Syndicate to decide against the grant of autonomy to any College. If the ultimate decision of the Syndicate is illegal on any
particular ground, it may be open to the college concerned to challenge that decision. But, before a decision is taken by the Syndicate, no college
can seek a mandamus to compel the Syndicate to confer the status of autonomy. There may be a petition for mandamus to direct the Syndicate to
consider the application of the College for grant of autonomous status and decide the issue. There are several criteria for grant of autonomous
status. If the complaint of a college is that the Syndicate has decided against the grant of autonomous status to the college without applying the
relevant criteria or that the Syndicate has acted mala fide in any particular matter, that may be a ground for quashing the decision of the Syndicate
by issuing a certiorari, if a ground is made out. But, even before a decision is taken by the Syndicate, it is not open for the college to seek a
mandamus to direct the Syndicate to confer autonomous status for any particular period.
No doubt, it is now brought to the notice of the Court by the University that the Syndicate passed a resolution on 17.2.1990 to seek the
concurrence of the State Government and the U.G.C. for grant of autonomous status to the college from the next academic year, viz. 1990-91.
But, that is not the final decision of the Syndicate. Even though the petitioner was quite aware of the said resolution, it has not chosen to challenge
the validity of the same. Nor has it sought for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said resolution. No mala fide whatever has been alleged in
the affidavit filed in support of the Syndicate. The only ground on which the writ is sought is that the University having held out that the
consideration for the autonomous status will be from the academic year 1989-90 and having invited the petitioner to make an application in that
behalf, ought to have accepted the recommendation of the Inspection Commission and obtained the concurrence of the U.G.C. and the State
Government therefore. In fact, the only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the principle of promissory estoppel will apply to the
facts of this case as the petitioner college has altered its situation on the basis of the promise made by the university by prescribing its own syllabus,
and preparing the students for that syllabus, it is stated in the reply affidavit, which is nearly three times as long as the original affidavit, that the
University has no power to conduct examinations for the students of the petitioner''s college as the students have pursued the courses based on
autonomous pattern.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
and my attention was drawn to the following passage in that judgment:
The State,however, contended that the doctrine of promissory estoppel had no application in the present case because the appellant did not
suffer any detriment by acting on the representation made by the Government ; the vanaspati factory set up by the appellant was quite a profitable
concern and there was no prejudice caused to the appellant. This contention of the State is clearly unsustainable and must be rejected. We do not
think it is, necessary, in order to attract the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, that the promisee, acting in reliance on the promise,
should suffer any detriment. What is necessary is only that the promisee should have altered his position in reliance on the promise. This position
was impliedly accepted by Denning, J., in the High Trees Case when the learned Judge pointed out that the promise must be one.
Which was intended to create legal relations and which, to the knowledge of the ""person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the
person to whom it was made and which was in fact acted on.
(emphasis supplied).
If a promise is ""acted on"", such action, in law as in physics, must necessarily result in an alteration of position."" This was again reiterated by Lord
Denning in W.J. Alan & co., Ltd. v. E1 Nasr Export and Import Co. (1972) 2 All ER 127 where the learned Law Lord made it clear that
alteration of position.
only means that he (the promisee) must have been led to act differently from what he would otherwise have done. And, if you study the cases in
which the doctrine has been applied, you will see that all that is required is that the one should have acted on the belief induced by the other party.
Viscount Simonds also observed in Tool Metal Mfg. Co. Limited v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd. (1955) 2 All ER 657 that""...the gist of the equity
lies in the fact that one party has by his conduct led the other to alter his position."" The judgment of Lord Tucker in the same case would be found
to depend likewise ""on a fundamental, finding of alteration of position, and the same may be said of that of Lord Coben. Then again in Ajayi v.
Briscoe (1964) 3 All ER 556 Lord Hodson said : ""This equity is, however, subject to the qualifications (a) that the other party has altered his
position"". The same requirement was also emphasised by Lord Diplock in kammin''s Ballrooms Ltd. v. Zenith Investments (Torguray) Ltd. (1970)
2 All ER 871. What is necessary, therefore, is no more than that there should be alteration of position on the part of the promisee. The alteration of
position need not involve any detriment to the promisee. If detriment were a necessary element, there would be no need for the doctrine of
promissory estoppel because, in that event, in quite a few cases, the detriment would form the consideration and the promise would be binding as a
contract There is in fact not a single case in England where detriment is insisted upon as a necessary ingredient of promissory estoppel. In fact, in
W.J. Alan & Co. Ltd. v. E1 Nasr Export and Import Co. (Supra) Lord Denning expressly rejected detriment as an""essential ingredient of
promissory estoppel, saying:
A seller may accept a less sum of his goods than the contracted price, thus inducing (his buyer) to believe that he will not enforce payment of the
balance: see Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1956) 1 All ER 256 and D. & C. Builders Ltd. v. Rees (1965) 3
ALL ER 337. In none of these cases does the party who acts on the belief suffer any detriment. It is not a detriment, but a benefit to him to have
an extension of time or to pay less, or as the case may be. Nevertheless, he has conducted his affairs on the basis that he has had that benefit and it
would not be equitable now to deprive him of it.
We do not think that in order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel it is necessary for the promisee to show that he suffered detriment as a
result of acting in reliance oh the promise. But we may make it clear that if by detriment we mean injustice to the promisee which would result if the
promisor were to recede from his promise, then detriment ""would certainly come in as a necessary ingredient The detriment in such a case is not
some prejudice suffered by the promisee by acting on the promise, but the prejudice which would be caused to the promisee, if the promisor were
allowed to go back on the promise. The classic exposition of detriment in this sense is to be found in the following passage from the judgment of
Dixon, J. in the Australian case of Grundt v. Great Boulder Pty. Gold Mines Ltd. (1938) 59 CLR 641:
...It is often said simply that the party asserting the estoppel must have been induced to act to his detriment. Although substantially such a statement
is correct and leads to no misunderstanding, it does not bring out clearly the basal purpose of the doctrine. That purpose is to avoid or prevent a
detriment to the party asserting the estoppel by compelling the opposite party to adhere to the assumption upon which the former acted or
abstained from acting. This means that the real detriment or harm for which the law seeks to give protection is that which would flow from ""the
change of position if the assumption were deserted that led to it So long as the assumption is adhered to, the party who altered his situation upon
the faith of it cannot complain. His complaint is that when afterwards the other party makes a different state of affairs the basis of an assertion of
right against him then, if it is allowed, his own proginal change of position will operate as a detriment His action or inaction must be such that if the
assumption upon which he proceeded were shown to be wrong, and an inconsistent state of affairs were accepted as the foundation of the rights
and duties of himself and the opposite party, the consequence would be to make his original act or failure to act a source of prejudice.
If this is the kind of detriment contemplated, it would necessarily be present in every case of promissory estopped, because it is on account of such
detriment which the promisee would suffer if the promisor were to act differently from his promise, that the Court would consider it inequitable to
allow the promisor to go back upon his promise. It would, therefore, be Correct to say that in order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel
it is enough to show that the promisee has, acting in reliance on the promise, altered his position and it is not necessary for him to further show that
he has acted to his detriment. Here, the appellant clearly altered its position by borrowing moneys from various financial institutions, purchasing
plant and machinery from M/s. De Smet (India) Pvt. Ltd. Bombay and setting up a vanaspati plant, in the belief induced by the representation of
the Government that sales tax exemption would be granted for a period of three years from the date of commencement of the production. The
Government was, therefore, bound on the principle of promissory estoppel to make good the representation made by it....
In my view, either the principle of promissory estoppel or the judgment of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of the present
case. There is no promise whatever on the part of the University at any time. I have already referred to the first letter issued by the University on
21-3-1989 to the College. There is nothing in the letter to assure the College that status of autonomy would be conferred on the college for any
period whatever. The letter only called upon the college to express its willingness to become autonomous and if so to send an application therefor.
Though the College did not send its reply within the prescribed time, the University was prepared to consider the application. There was no
misunderstanding on the part of the college, as it is clear from the letter written by the Secretary and correspondent of the College on 26.4.1989.
In the last paragraph, he requested the University to include the college in the list of colleges to be considered by the University for conferring
autonomous status. The prayer was only for being considered and there was no question of any assurance on the part of the University that the
autonomy would be conferred on the college for the year in question. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Government assured the appellant
therein categorically that the proposed vanaspati factory of the appellant would be entitled to exemption from sales-tax in respect of sales of
vanaspati effected in Uttar pradesh for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production. After the appellant borrowed
heavily and made all arrangements to establish the factory, the Government changed its policy and refused to grant the exemption from payment of
sales-tax. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the appellant having altered its situation pursuant to the promise made by the State
Government, it was not open to the latter to go back on its promise and refuse to give exemption. On the facts of that case, the doctrine of
promissory estoppel was clearly applicable.
In the present case, the alleged alteration of the situation by the college is nothing else but an usurpation of the powers of autonomy as if status
of autonomy had already been given. As an affiliated college, the petitioner is bound to adopt the curriculum issued by the University and follow a
syllabus prescribed by it Till it is designated as an autonomous college, it has no power to transgress or violate the Regulations or statutes of the
University. Even after the status of autonomy is conferred on a college, it cannot straightaway change the syllabus. The syllabus has to be
prescribed only by the Board of Studies. The Board of Studies has to be constituted in accordance with Section 9 of Chapter XXVI of the
Statute. The only body that is empowered to prescribe syllabus for an autonomous College is the Board of Studies and unless and until such a
Board of Studies is constituted in accordance with the Statute, the college cannot alter the syllabus. It is not open to the College to invoke the
doctrine of estoppel after having committed an illegality. On the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the requirements of the doctrine of
promissory estoppel are fulfilled. While on the one hand there is no promise or assurance on the part of the University, on the other there is no such
alteration of situation as would enable the college to claim the benefit of the Rule. The only alteration is arrogation of powers, to which the college
was not entitled.
When the First Inspection Commission was requested by the University to inspect the college and make a report, the University had
forwarded certain documents to the Commission which included the latest quinquennial report about the College. The Commission was requested
specifically by the University to verify whether the defects pointed out in the quinquennial report had been rectified or not. In spite of the express
request by the University, the Commission did not make such verification. At any rate, its report does not disclose whether a Verification was
made. There is not even a reference in the report to the defects pointed out in the quinquennial report and whether they had been rectified by the
college. The report of the First Inspection Commission is really one against the college and not in its favour. While the Statutes of the University as
well as the Guidelines of the U.G.C. clearly stated that the grant of autonomy would be for a period of five years, the Commission appointed by
the University should have considered the position only with regard to autonomy for a period of five years. The Commission had no business to
consider the grant of autonomous status for a period of one year. In fact, the Commission observed.
...However, the Commission noted that the infrastructural facilities and financial resources require to be augmented before the college would
become a full fledged autonomous institution. The college has no hostel attached to it and only a mini canteen is functioning. There is no proper
playground facilities, though there is enough space to develop this facility. The UGC is of the view that autonomy should be conferred on
institutions which have the potential to blossom into Centres of Excellence. Such an institution is expected not only to be academically sound but
also sound in respect of financial resources and infrastructural facilities to sustain the demands of autonomy.
08 Under the above circumstances, the Commission is of the view that Meenakshi College for women, Madras-600024 may be granted autonomy
provisionally for this year (1989-90) in respect of the undergraduate and postgraduate courses run by them. The commission also recommends
that, inasmuch as the management has ""responded positively to improve the infrastructe facilities before next academic years, another Inspection
Commission be sent immediately before the commencement of the next academic year to review and report to the Syndicate as to whether the
autonomy can be continued. Further, the Commission is also of the view that Meenakshi College for Women, Madras, while implementing the
autonomy should not deviate from the basic auricular frame work of the parent University and the accepted policies of the State Government.
Hence, the recommendation of the Commission was a hesitating one. The members of the Commission did not have the heart to recommend
conferment of autonomous status straightaway on the college. They themselves recommended only provisional autonomy for one year which
should not be continued without another. Inspection Commission being sent immediately before the commencement of the next academic year to
review and report Hence, there is no point in the petitioner placing any reliance on the report of the First Inspection Commission. The petitioner
conveniently blames the University for granting autonomy for one year only and repeatedly states that the University committed a mistake in doing
so and to cover up the same, the University is now not willing to grant autonomy for five years. There is absolutely no justification for such a
complaint at the instance of the petitioner as against the University. In fact, the Syndicate ought to have rejected the application for grant of
autonomy, but proceeded to accept the recommendation of the First Inspection Commission and sought for the concurrence of the State
Government and U.G.C. for conferment of autonomy for one year. Incidentally, I must refer at this stage to the order of the State Government in
G.O.Ms. No.439, Education (H.2) Department dated 26.3.1990 cancelling the earlier G.O.Ms. No. 1595 dated 7-11-1989. No doubt, the G.O.
has been passed after the filing of the writ petition. But, the Government is certainly entitled to cancel the earlier G.O. as the U.G.C. had refused to
give its concurrence for conferment of autonomy on the petitioner college. Hence, the petitioner cannot have any grievance whatever over the
resolution passed by the Syndicate earlier to grant autonomy for one year or the Government order giving concurrence to the University for grant
of autonomy for the year 1989-90.
With reference to the Second Inspection Commission, according to the report, some of the defects pointed out in the quinquennial report had
been rectified by the College. But, that report also points out that there was no hostel accommodation or auditorium and thus, some of the defects
pointed out in the quinquennial report had not been rectified. The Commission gave a finding that there was substantial compliance and rectification
of the defects pointed out in the quinquennial report. Even according to the Commission all the defects pointed out in the quinquennial report were
not rectified. With regard to infrastructural facilities, the finding of the Commission is rather halting. It is expressed in a guarded language that the
Commission ""is of the opinion that the infrastructural facilities available cannot be considered to be inadequate, though there may be scope for
improvement"". In spite of that, the Commission chose to recommend conferment of autonomy for five years from the current academic year. The
syndicate is certainly entitled to come to its own conclusion, even on the basis of the contents of the report. The Syndicate is also entitled to go
behind the findings of the Commission and look into other materials and decide the issue. In the absence of any mala fide on the part of the
Syndicate, the resolution passed by the Syndicate on 17.2.1990 cannot be said to be erroneous or unsustainable. There is no ground whatever to
interfere with the decision of the Syndicate on the facts of the case.
Reliance is placed upon the letter of the Chairman of the U.G.O. dated February 21, 1990. I am unable to conceal my surprise that the
Chairman of a Statutory Commission should indulge in such private correspondence unofficially in a matter which should be decided by the
Commission as such. Based on the representations made by the principal of the petitioner''s college and the unofficial copy of the report of the
Second Inspection Commission given to him by her, the Chairman proceeds to call the Vice-Chancellor on the phone and have a talk with him on
the subject following it by a D.O. Letter addressed not only to the Vice-Chancellor but also to the Special Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Tamil Nadu, as if he is the only person who is to take a decision in the Commission. Under the University Grants Commission Act
(III of 1956), the Commission is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and it shall consist of nine members to be
appointed by the Central Government The Chairman of the Commission, who is the third respondent herein; (the Commission is not impleaded as
a party, but the Chairman is impleaded) expresses an opinion on a matter which has to be decided by the commission in its sitting. He proceeds to
suggest the course to be adopted by the University and the Government of Tamil Nadu. There is no indication in the letter that the Chairman had
consultations with the other members of the Commission or that he was authorised by the other members to take a decision in the matter. Learned
Counsel for the third respondent when questioned by me was not in a position to say whether the Chairman consulted the other members of the
Commission before issuing the letter. No affidavit has been filed by the third respondent stating the circumstances under which the letter was
written. The language of the letter is also not quite appropriate. It reads as if the'' Commission is ready to grant autonomy to the college. The
Commission is not entitled to do so. It is only the University which can grant autonomy to any college affiliated thereto. The Commission can only
express its concurrence or disagreement. There is no question of the Commission itself granting autonomy to any college, which is affiliated to a
University. I. do not think I need say anything further about the letter dated 21.2.1990 for the purpose of this case. Suffice it to point out that the
letter has no value whatever in the eye of law to enable the petitioner to get the relief prayed for in this writ petition.
Even the prayer in the writ petition as framed cannot be granted. A mandamus is sought against the University to confer autonomous status for
the petitioner college based on the report of the Second Inspection Commission for a period of five years from the current academic year. I have
already dealt with that part of the prayer and held that the petitioner is not entitled to such a direction. The latter part of the prayer is to direct the
University to get the concurrence of the second and third respondents in that behalf. It is not as if the petitioner seeks a mandamus as against
second and third respondents to grant concurrence. The prayer is to direct the University to get the concurrence. It is not known how the
University can compel either the State Government or the U.G.C. to grant concurrence. The University can only convey its decision to confer
autonomous status and seek the concurrence of the State Government as well as the U.G.C. It is for the Government and the U.G.C. to consider
the relevant facts and decide whether such concurrence should be given or not.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the conferment of autonomous status on certain colleges even before the receipt of
Inspection Reports. Nothing was mentioned about those colleges in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. A reference is made to those
colleges only in the reply affidavit for the first time. Probably, the relevant facts pertaining to those colleges for grant of autonomous status were
available to the University already. It is not possible for this Court to go into those allegations without there being any reference to the same in the
original affidavit of the petitioner.
Reliance is also placed on grant of autonomy to certain colleges even as late as in December in a particular year. In the absence of any
allegation that the requisite conditions for the grant of autonomy were not satisfied by those colleges, the petitioner cannot invoke to its aid those
instances.
Reliance is placed on the Guidelines issued by the U.G.C. and in particular to paragraph 8 relating to Mechanics for Implementation of
Autonomy at the College Level''. It is seriously contended that the Guidelines required the college to change the syllabus in autonomous pattern and
start functioning as if autonomy has been granted even before the conferment of the status. I have already extracted the relevant portions of the
Guidelines and also the last paragraph in Chapter I of the Guidelines. When there were rules and Statutes of the University which govern the
affiliated college, it is not open to the college to say that they acted in accordance with the guidelines. The U.G.C. has made it clear that the
guidelines are only suggestive and they cannot have precedence over the Statutes and rules framed by the University. The paragraph relating to
''Mechanics for implementation of Autonomy at the College Level'' only expects the staff, students and other concerned persons to have all the
necessary information about autonomous colleges in their possession even before the autonomy is granted. That paragraph does not in any way
require a college to function in an autonomous pattern even before conferment of the status.
As pointed out rightly by the learned Advocate General appearing for the University, the petitioner having taken a wrong step in assuming the
powers of an autonomous college has been indulging in pressure-tactics to compel the University to confer the status. Article 226, Constitution of
India will not come to the aid of such a person. The petition deserves to be dismissed.
The University has in its counter affidavit stated in paragraph 10 as follows:
This Respondent submits that the University is fully aware that because of the grave irregularity committed by the management of the college,
the students of the first year are facing some anxiety. The University undertakes to provide special arrangements for these students. Contrary to the
claims of the college, the difference in the syllabi between the University and the college cannot be much and it would be a reasonable presumption
that most of the portions would be common. So if a question paper is set from the common portions of the two syllabi (viz., syllabus followed by
the University for its affiliated colleges and the syllabus said to be framed by the Meenakshi college) it would adequately safeguard the interests of
the students. The University will also explore other methods of safeguarding the interests of the students. If different text books have been
prescribed by the college under Languages, the University will adopt those books and set question papers on those text books as a special case.
While what the university is undertaking to do above would merely be a departure from established procedure in view of the extra-ordinary
circumstances of this case, the prayer sought for by the college, namely, to permit the college to conduct its own examinations (without getting
autonomous status) is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Madras University Act and the Laws of the University.
In view of the said undertaking of the University, to provide special arrangements for the students of the petitioner college and to set question
papers from the common portions of the two syllabi, the interests of the students of the college are well protected and they will not be in jeopardy
by the dismissal of the writ petition. The University is directed to act in accordance with the undertaking.
The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.