Parents/Guardians Association of Karunya Institute of Technology (Regd) vs Director of Technical Education and Others

C. Shivappa, J.—The petitioner is seeking for a direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to forbear from proceeding with any disciplinary

action against the sons, daughters and wards of the members of the petitioner Association pursuant to the charge memo dated 16.12.1996.

The Institution was stated as a self financing college and is affiliated to the Bharathiar University at Coimbatore. It is the grievance of the

petitioner that the Institution never had any regard to the fees stipulated by the Government and the Supreme Court, and they were forced to pay

more, in contravention of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, It is also alleged that the

students who belong to different faith and persuasion were forced to attend prayer meetings arranged by the trustees of the respondent No. 3 and

any failure on the part of the students visited with punishment including charging with exorbitant fine amounts. The students felt agitated and started

a movement against the imposition of illegal fine amounts which ran into several lakh of rupees. The students of the College went on a strike and

they were threatened with serious action alleging guilty of dragging and used it as a pretext brought police into the campus and this created a rub

between the management and students and affected the functioning of the College. Consequently, the College was closed.

The petitioner contended that third respondent is carrying on an activity which is not permissible in law and respondent No. 4 having permitted

the Presenting Officer to act on behalf of the management and in refusing the students to take assistance of a legal practitioner of their choice is

illegal, and imputed that respondent No. 4 is over enthusiastic and loyal to respondent No. 3 and apprehended impartial enquiry and also

contended that appointment of respondent No. 4 as domestic enquiry officer is only illegal and contrary to Article 226 of the Constitution.

Respondents No. 3 contended that a group of 43 students who have no desire to abide by the regulations of the College hold the other 1400

students in the Campus to ransom who desire to follow the rules and regulations of the College. It is alleged that they threatened them adopting

violence, intimidation and other unethical methods with the active assistance of anti-social elements. It is also alleged that the faculty and non-

teaching staff have also been terrorized to that extent that they would leave the Institution if the violent acts of this group of students are not

enquired into and thus left scot-free. In these circumstances, the College has been closed indefinitely pending enquiry and the violent acts of the

group of students and it cannot be opened for fear of security of the inmates of the Campus, which is in a remote rural setting 25 Kms. away from

the city. It is also contended that Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie to enforce the terms of the contract and as such petition deserves to

be rejected as not maintainable and justified the appointment of respondent No. 4. It is also alleged that third respondent Institution is a minority

Institution and writ petition is not maintainable in law and on facts. It is also contended that the petitioner Association has no locus standi to

espouse the cause and case of the delinquent students.

Respondent No. 4 who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry about the alleged incident of violence by the students has now

resigned. As a result of his resignation, the question of granting a direction to forbear from proceeding with the disciplinary action by respondent

No. 4 against the delinquent students does not arise. However, after arguing for some time, both the learned counsel submitted that the interest of

1400 students will suffer and there will be likelihood of closure of the Institution indefinitely. Both the petitioner and the management have

responded to the advice of the counsel keeping in view the larger interest of the Institution and , that of other students and the delinquent students

have filed separate affidavits regretting for the unpleasant incident, which had taken in the campus and tendered apology with an undertaking that

they will not indulge in any action or activities which will be described as an act of indiscipline by the College management. These affidavits are

placed on record. In this fact situation management agreed to drop proceedings on the charge memos.

The purpose of education is improvement, but it must be all round improvement and not merely physical and intellectual improvement, but also

moral and spiritual improvement. An educated man is qualitatively a better man, better in every respect specially in terms of human qualities. The

students should realise that the Institution is there to make them grow, grow not for their sake only, but for the sake of others as well. The

management should also realise that imposing their own faith against the wish of others in an educational institution in the guise of discipline amounts

to forego their own faith and affects their sentiments. The management should not create such atmosphere, or to create a circumstance provoking a

situation where the immature mind will react to a situation aggressively. It is all the more necessary for the management to develop a sense of

compassion, fellow-feeling, harmony, under-standing and sympathy towards the students. It is these qualities that hold the students and the

management together. It should aim at making pupil thoughtful, intelligent, rational capable and responsive to new ideas, but more important it

should also make them moral, kind, generous and selfless. This can be achieved by a good understanding and not by hatred. The delinquent

students should abide by the undertaking given before this Court and conduct in an orderly way to facilitate smooth functioning of the College. The

management should not have a revengeful eye on the delinquent students keeping the interest of the Institution and the students . Respondent No. 3

is directed to open the College, if not already opened, as submitted by the management on the previous date of hearing.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that intimation of opening the College has already been sent to the students and their

guardians and the College will be opened on 27.2.1997 for III year, 28.2.1997 for IT Year and 1.3.1997 for I, IV and P.G. Classes. They may

do so accordingly. Among the delinquent students six lady students are permitted to stay in the hostel for which the management has no objection,

whereas the boys have to stay outside the hostel in order to have a conducive atmosphere in the Campus.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, no order is necessary in WMP.No. 373 of 1997.