AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Ravichandra Baabu
The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent to ensure constitution of the College Committee for Nadar Mahajana
Sangam, S. Vellaichamy Nadar College Peravai in terms of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Act, 1976. The case of the
petitioner is that he is a member of the Nadar Mahajana Sangam, S. Vellaichamy Nadar College Peravai (Society), Nagamalai, Madurai,
registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The General Body of the said society is the Educational Agency, which had
established the Vellaichamy Nadar Mahajana Sangam, S. Vellaichamy Nadar College in the year 1965. The College Committee has to be formed
in terms of Section 11 r/w Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act and Rules, 1976. An election to the Executive Committee of
the said society was held on 15.05.2005. However, without holding separate election to the College Committee, the Executive Committee had
constituted a College Committee by way of amending the bye-law of the society. As per Rule 8(3) of the said Rules, the College Committee shall
consist of the representatives of the educational agency and such representatives shall have to be nominated only by such educational agency. The
Executive Committee of the society cannot be equated with the educational agency of the society. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the
constitution of the College Committee is not in terms Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Hence, he has filed the
present writ petition.
The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit on 24.06.2008, wherein, he has stated that there was no election held to the College
Committee and the constitution of the College Committee by the Executive Committee is not in accordance with law.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the fifth respondent, wherein, it is stated that pursuant to a direction given by this Court in W.A.(MD) No.
47 of 2005 dated 24.02.2005, the election to the Executive Committee of the society was held on 15.05.2005 and thereafter, a College
Committee was constituted by the Executive Committee of the society. As the society is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act, 1975, the same should have a Committee not less than three members to manage its affairs, as contemplated u/s 15 of the Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Thus, the Executive Committee of the society is in-charge of the affairs of the society and all the acts done
by the Executive Committee of the society are deemed to be done by the society, in the eye of law. Under Rule 8(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private
Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, only nomination of the representatives of the educational agency to the College Committee is contemplated and
as such, nomination does not mean such appointment should be made by election process alone. Even as per Rule (9)(a) of the bye-law of the
society, the Executive Committee empowered to nominate four members of the College Committee. The said bye-law has been duly registered
under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act and the petitioner being the member of the society cannot question the validity of the said
bye-law and it is binding on him. When the bye-laws of the society are in the nature of being the binding contract between the members of the
society, the same cannot be questioned by the petitioner by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the only question involved in this case is as to whether the amended bye-law in
the year 2004 of the said society can automatically bring the persons as representatives of the College Committee, which is against Rule 8(3) of the
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent has contended that the Executive Committee is constituted under the Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the fifth respondent is the Secretary of the said Executive Committee. Therefore, the Executive
Committee is the Body, which is directly in control over the whole affairs of the society and the educational agency as well as the college.
Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 8(3). It is also further contended by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that there is no other Body,
other than the General Body and therefore, the Executive Committee is also the educational agency of the college and as such, the members of the
College Committee are nominated by the educational agency and such a nomination is strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations of the
Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation), Act and Rules, 1976.
The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent further contended that in effect the petitioner is attacking the bye-law 9(a) in this writ
petition which is not permissible, as the only remedy open to the petitioner is to file a suit, if at all, he is aggrieved against the constitution of College
Committee as per the said bye-law.
Heard the learned counsels for respective parties.
The only prayer sought for in this writ petition is that the second respondent should ensure that the Constitution of the College Committee of the
Nadar Mahajana Sangam, S. Vellaichamy Nadar College Peravai is in terms of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Rules,
1976. According to the petitioner, the election to the Executive Committee alone was conducted and not to the College Committee. In other
words, the contention of the petitioner is that the College Committee has to be constituted by conducting an election. It is the further contention of
the petitioner that the Executive Committee so elected cannot act as an educational agency and it is only the General Body of the society is the
educational agency and therefore, the Executive Committee cannot nominate members to the College Committee as per the amended bye-law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the amended by law under clause 9(a) indicating as to who are all to become the
members of the College Committee is not in terms of the said Rules.
Before going into the rival contentions of the respective parties, let me consider the relevant provision under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges
(Regulation) Act and Rules, 1976, which deals with the constitution of the College Committee. Section 11 of the said Act reads as follows:-
Constitution of College Committee.- Every private college, not being a minority college, shall have a College Committee which shall include the
following persons employed in the private college, namely :-
(a) the Principal;
(b) the senior-most Selection grade Lecturer or Reader;
(c) one other Selection Grade Lecturer; and
(d) the senior-most Superintendent;
Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 reads as follows:
Constitution of committee.- (1) The educational agency of every college, other than minority college, shall constitute a committee.
The educational agency in respect of any other private college has been defined u/s 2(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,
1976, which reads as follows:-
(4) ""educational agency"", in relation to-
(b) any other private college, means any person or body of persons permitted or deemed to be permitted under this Act to establish and maintain
such other private college;
The ""College Committee"" has been defined u/s 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, which is as follows:-
College Committee"", in relation to a private college, means the College Committee referred to in section 11;
From the conjoint reading of the above said relevant provisions, it is seen that the educational agency means in respect of a private college any
person or Body of persons permitted or deemed to be permitted to establish and maintain the said private college. The College Committee means
a committee constituted as per Section 11 of the said Act. Section 11 of the said Act only says that a private college shall have a College
Committee which shall include the persons employed in the said college, namely, the Principal, Senior most Selection Grade Lecturer or Reader,
one other Selection Grade Lecturer and the Senior-most Superintendent.
While reading Section 8(3), it is seen that the educational agency of every college shall constitute a committee consisting of representatives of
the educational agency who shall be nominated by such educational agency. Thus the contention of the petitioner that members to the college
committee are only to be elected, does not have any merit. Further from the combined reading of the provisions under Sections 11 and 8(3), it is
seen that only the educational agency can nominate the representatives of the educational agency to the College Committee. The petitioner
contends that the Executive Committee is not the educational agency and as such, nomination made by the Executive Committee to the College
Committee cannot be construed as the nomination made by the educational agency. On the other hand, the fourth respondent contends that the
Executive Committee elected alone is the educational agency of the college and as such, any nomination made by them is to be construed only as
nomination by the educational agency. Thus, the real dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent society raises a question as to whether
the executive committee of the society is the educational agency or not. As the amended bye-law 9(a) empowers so, the petitioner contends that
the amended bye-law under Rule 9(a) is not in terms of Section 11 or Rule 8(3). If that is contention of the petitioner, the same has to be
challenged before the competent Court only by filing appropriate civil suit. Whether the Executive Committee and its functions would fit into the
definition of ""educational agency"" u/s 4(b) of the said Act or not is purely a question of fact which cannot be gone into in this writ petition especially
when the pleadings and submissions of both parties dispute each other. At any event, as the petitioner is seeking only for a Mandamus to the
second respondent to ensure that the constitution of the College Committee is made in accordance with Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges
(Regulation) Rules, 1976, it is needless to say that the second respondent is duty bound to ensure that the College Committee constituted by the
fifth respondent society is in accordance with Section 11 and Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Rules, 1976. But at
the same time, the petitioner, though sought for such prayer, had in fact indirectly questioned the very bye-law (9)(a) of the first respondent society
and also questioned the constitution of the Educational agency. In my considered view, such challenge cannot be gone into in this writ petition and
it is for him to go only before the competent civil Court by filing an appropriate suit. When it is the categorical contention of the fifth respondent that
constitution of the College Committee is in accordance with Rule 8(3) as well as Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act
and Rules, 1976 and the same was also made as per bye-laws of the fifth respondent society, any grievance of the petitioner as against such
constitution is purely of civil in nature, which has to be agitated only before the competent civil Court. With these observations, the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.