R. Ramasamy vs The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, The Registrar, Bharathiar University and The Registrar, Alagappa University

M. Jaichandren J.

This writ petition has been filed, by the petitioner, as a Public Interest Litigation, praying that this Court may be pleaded to issue a Writ of

Mandamus, directing the respondents to check the Universities in the State and to conduct an enquiry, regarding the establishment of Off-campus

study centres and franchise centres, beyond their territorial jurisdiction and to implement the letter of the University Grants Commission No. F. 9-

8/2008(CPP-I), dated 16.04.2009, by fixing a time frame. The respondents 2 to 4 have been impleaded by an order passed by this Court, on

09.11.2011, in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2011.

The petitioner has stated that he had been working as a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Entrepreneurship Studies, in Madurai Kamaraj

University, Madurai. He has stated that the professional courses, such as M.B.A., M.C.A. etc., are all conducted, by the Universities, in their

Departments, as well as in various other places, by having Off-campus centres and franchise centres outside their jurisdiction. The Universities

concerned have not obtained the necessary approval from the All India Council for Technical Education, the Distance Education Council and the

University Grants Commission for the establishment of such centres.

He had further stated that many innocent students are suffering, as they have undergone their professional courses in such centres, which do not

possess the necessary approval from the authorities concerned. The parents of the students, who have completed their professional courses in the

Off-campus centres, have spent their hard earned money for providing education to the students. Further, the students who had passed out from

such centres, are not getting the jobs, as they are not properly qualified, even though they had been granted professional Degrees.

The petitioner had further submitted that the Off-campus centres and franchise centres, run by the Universities concerned, do not possess the

necessary infrastructure, for conducting the professional courses. They do not have qualified teachers to teach the professional subjects. In such

circumstances, the Secretary, University Grants Commission, had written a letter, dated 16.04.2009, to all the State Governments stating that the

Universities had to stop all the State/State Private Universities in the State, from establishing off-campus study centres and franchise centres in the

name of distance education programmes, outside the State of Tamil Nadu. The State Universities and private Universities, established by the State

Governments, cannot operate beyond their territorial jurisdiction, in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India, in Prof.

Yashpal and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, . In the said letter, they have also stated that the Parliament alone is competent to

enact laws providing the necessary powers for the establishment of such Centres. However, the existing State laws have granted the State and

Private Universities to operate off-campus centres and franchise centres, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Universities, contrary to the

dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the respondents should be directed to follow the letter issued by the Secretary, University

Grants Commission, dated 16.04.2009.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that necessary approval has been obtained from the authorities concerned,

including the All India Council for Education, for conducting the professional courses. It has been further stated that the petitioner has not made any

specific allegations, with regard to particular aspects, to show that the respondents 2 to 4 have violated the Rules and Regulations applicable to

them.

It has also been stated that the allegations made against the respondents 2 to 4 are vague in nature and that the present writ petition has been

filed, by the petitioner, only in his private interest.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has stated that if any particular irregularity is brought to the notice of the first

respondent, with regard to the irregularities committed by the respondents 2 to 4, appropriate action would be initiated against them, in accordance

with law. He had further stated that it is for the appropriate authorities, including the All India Council for Technical Education, to take necessary

action against the respondents 2 to 4, if they find that irregularities had been committed. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on perusal of the records available, we find that the allegations levelled by the petitioner, against the

respondents 2 to 4, are vague in nature. The relief prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is omnibus in character and therefore,

such a relief cannot be granted by this Court. Further, it is not open to the petitioner to pray for a direction, by way of a Writ of Mandamus, to

direct the first respondent to conduct enquiries against the establishment of off-campus study centres and franchise centres, said to have been

established by the respondents 2 to 4 herein, and to direct the first respondent to implement the letter of the Secretary of University Grants

Commission, dated 16.04.2009. The necessary particulars have not been furnished, by the petitioner, pointing out the actual irregularities

committed, by the respondents 2 to 4, for this Court to direct the first respondent to take action against them. In such circumstances, this Court is

of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the

writ petition is dismissed. No costs.