AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioners in all these writ petitions applied for admission to B.E./B.Tech., Degree Course in the second
respondent college, for the academic year 2002-2003. Out of the 17 students, who are the petitioners in this batch of 18 writ petitions (17
separate writ petitions and 1 common writ petition for 16 students), 12 hail from Kerala, 4 hail from Andhra Pradesh and 1 from Tamilnadu. The
petitioner in W.P. No. 11112 of 2004 by name Anjith Mathew is reported to have died in an accident.
All the writ petitioners were admitted to the B.E./B.Tech., Degree Course by the second respondent college in various disciplines, under the
quota reserved for S.C/S.Ts. After the students completed three semesters and were expecting to appear for the fourth semester examination
scheduled to be held in April 2004, they were informed by the management that the University refused to issue hall tickets to them, as they were
found ineligible for admission.
Immediately the petitioners came up with the present batch of writ petitions, contending that they were admitted under the N.R.I quota and that
they had no knowledge about any manipulation made by the management of the college, regarding their Community status and that therefore they
cannot be penalised. Therefore they prayed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent-University and the second
respondent-College to allow them to complete their course, treating them as having been admitted under the N.R.I quota. One student (the
petitioner in W.P. No. 13123 of 2004) caught hold of a communication dated 26.3.2004 of the first respondent-University, addressed to the
College, pointing out that the Community Certificates produced by a group of students (whose names were mentioned in the Annexure to the
letter) were not genuine. Therefore, that student prayed for quashing the said communication also. Similarly, the petitioners in some of these writ
petitions joined together and also filed additional writ petition in W.P. No. 28545 of 2004, seeking a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the
respondents from cancelling or interfering with the admission/study of the B.E./B.Tech., Course pursued by the petitioners under respondents
without a proper enquiry into any alleged irregularities in the admission and after giving them a proper notice and opportunity.
In April 2004, most of these writ petitions were admitted and interim orders were passed, permitting the students to write the semester
examinations. By virtue of the interim orders, the petitioners completed the entire course. But the petitioners could not get Course Completion
Certificates and Degree Certificates, forcing them to come up with miscellaneous petitions for early hearing of the writ petitions.
At that stage, the learned Judge before whom, the miscellaneous petitions for fixing an early date and for vacating the interim orders were listed,
heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Standing Counsel for the University and the counsel for the second respondent-College. Upon
finding that there is a factual dispute about the quota under which the petitioners sought admission and the quota under which the second
respondent-College actually admitted them, the learned Judge passed an order dated 19.7.2007 in the entire batch of writ petitions (including
some more writ petitions), appointing a retired Judge of this Court to conduct an enquiry. The said order was passed by the learned Judge, by
consent of all the parties and hence it is necessary to extract paragraphs-18 and 19 of the said order, to appreciate the issues involved:
Learned Senior Counsel for some of the petitioners/students and other counsel appearing for individual petitioners/students as well as the
counsel for Anna University, the counsel appearing for the Institutions/Engineering Colleges concerned and the Government Pleader have
unanimously agreed for appointment of a Commission to enquire into the matter before proceeding further in the writ petitions. In the light of the
controversy involved, this Court deems it fit that the relief sought for by the petitioners/students can be decided after getting a report based on
enquiry by a Court appointed Commissioner. Accordingly, the following issues needs to be considered and enquired into by the Commission:
(a) Whether the petitioners/students in all these cases applied for admission under N.R.I quota or under regular management quota (lapsed seats)
under SC/ST quota?
(b) Whether the students/petitioners at the time of admission to the Institutions produced the Community Certificates or not?
(c) Whether the signatures in the letters of undertaking given by the petitioners/students, counter-signed by concerned Principal are the signatures
of the petitioners/students or they are forged signatures?
(d) Whether the Community Certificates forwarded by the Institutions to the official respondents along with the applications of the
petitioners/students have been applied for and produced by the petitioners/students (or) by the Institutions in question as stated by the
petitioners/students?
In order to resolve the controversy and as agreed by parties, this Court appoints the Hon''ble Mr. Justice J. Kanakaraj (Retired Judge of this
Court) to conduct an enquiry and file a report, on the above issues. The Commissioner is at liberty to consider any other relevant and necessary
issue for the purpose of the enquiry. The Commissioner will be assisted by the Registrar, Anna University and the Director of Technical Education,
Chennai. The petitioners/students are permitted to appear before the Commissioner as and when required either in person or through counsel and
will also appear if required by the Commissioner. The Principal of the respective Colleges/Institutions shall also appear as and when directed by
the Commissioner. All parties to co-operate without demur and produce documents in their custody as and when required.
In pursuance of the said order, Justice J. Kanakaraj (retired) inspected the original admission records in the Anna University on 19.9.2007 and
issued notices to the petitioners as well as the College to appear for an enquiry in the University campus on 23.10.2007. After hearing the students
(writ petitioners), their counsel and the representative of the College and their Advocate, the Commissioner submitted a report dated 15.11.2007
along with all the documents such as application forms, transfer certificates, resident certificates, community certificates etc., as annexures.
Out of the petitioners in this batch of 18 writ petitions, one of them by name K. Shirisha Raju, the petitioner in W.P. No. 30046 of 2007, had
earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 24187 of 2004 and the same was disposed of by a learned Judge by an order dated 15.11.2006, directing
the University to conduct an enquiry to find out the genuineness of the Community Certificate and to find out the person responsible for producing
the same. In pursuance of the said order, an enquiry was conducted by the University and a report dated 26.2.2007 was submitted. In the said
report, the Enquiry Committee of the University found the management of the College responsible for the malpractices in question. But the
Committee also found the student guilty to the extent that she ought not to have continued the course, despite being ineligible for admission.
Therefore, the candidate K. Shirisha Raju has come up with the second writ petition W.P. No. 30046 of 2007 challenging the report of the
Enquiry Committee of the University.
Therefore, the case of K. Shirisha Raju, petitioner in W.P. No. 30046 of 2007 was also subsequently referred to Justice J. Kanakaraj (retired).
After following a similar procedure as he had followed in respect of the other candidates, the Commissioner submitted a separate report dated
31.10.2007 in respect of this candidate.
After submitting copies of the reports of the Commissioner, to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel
for the University (first respondent) and the learned Counsel for the second respondent-College, we heard Mr. V. Prakash and Mr. K.
Alagirisamy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mani Sundar Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-University, Mr.
T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent-College and Mr. P. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader.
As stated earlier, Justice J. Kanakaraj (retired) was appointed as a fact finding Commission, by consent of all the parties, to find out whether
the petitioners applied for admission under the N.R.I quota and whether the petitioners produced the Community Certificates, which were found to
be bogus by the competent authorities. After scrutinising the original admission records available in the University and after affording an opportunity
of hearing to all the parties, the Commissioner gave his findings, in his report dated 15.11.2007. The findings were given by the Commissioner in
the form of answers to the issues referred to him in paragraph-18 of the order of the learned single Judge passed on 19.7.2007. These findings are
as follows:
a. The petitioner did apply only under the NRI quota and not under the SC/ST quota.
b. The petitioner never furnished any community certificate stating that he belonged to the SC Community.
c. The signatures of the petitioner in the undertaking and the application for eligibility certificate are denied as false by the student. But according to
the SNCET they are only the petitioner''s signature.
d. The inference to be drawn is that the community certificate was sent only by the SNCET and it was that community certificate which was found
to be bogus by the Collector, on verification.
I have explained the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 11111 of 2004 in great detail because all the other cases are almost similar. It appears to
me that the SNCET had indulged in the illegal activity of producing false certificates to the Anna University with the intention of filling the vacant
seats and making more money and the student and his or her parents in their anxiety to get a B.E. Degree were only innocent victims.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent objected to the findings recorded by the Commissioner and contended that
the second respondent-College admitted the students merely on the basis of the Certificates produced by them. In the light of the said objections,
we also perused the documents enclosed to the report of the Commissioner independently.
Prima facie, the application forms submitted by the petitioners, at the time of seeking admission to the second respondent-College, themselves
support the finding of the Commissioner. Out of 17 students, who are petitioners in these 18 writ petitions, one student (petitioner in W.P. No.
11112 of 2004) is dead. In the application forms submitted by them to the second respondent-College, while seeking admission to B.E. Degree
Course, all the petitioners herein, except the petitioner in W.P. No. 13126 of 2004 (by name Sowmya Bolla), have indicated their community
status in column No. 6 of the printed application form, either as O.C. or as B.C. (Christian) or as just Christian. The petitioner in W.P. No. 13126
of 2004 alone had put a tick mark in the box reserved for SC/ST in column No. 6 of the application. Again she alone had put a tick mark in the
box indicating ""No"", in answer to the question in column No. 16, as to whether she was claiming NRI quota seat. But all the other petitioners had
put a tick mark in the box indicating ""YES"", in answer to the question in column No. 16 of the application form.
Therefore, the Commissioner had rightly concluded that the petitioners did not apply for admission under the quota reserved for SC/STs, nor
did they make any false representation in the application form, claiming to belong to SC or ST. On the contrary, the students had applied for
admission under the NRI quota. Hence the findings recorded by the Commissioner, are perfectly justified.
In respect of the petitioner in W.P. No. 13126 of 2004 (Sowmya Bolla), the Commissioner found that the application form was signed by her
father and that the application form was accompanied by the T.C. (Transfer Certificate) from the Institution from which she completed the
Intermediate Course. In the T.C., column No. 5 contains a question as to ""whether the candidate belongs to SCs/STs/Vimuktha Jathis or other
socially and educationally backward classes specified in A.P.E.Rs or is he a convert from the SCs/STs if so, the particulars thereof"". The candidate
has drawn a blank line against this column. On the basis of this Transfer Certificate and on the basis of the fact that she hails from West Godavari
District, the Commissioner found that the Community Certificate issued at Chennai, would not have been furnished by her. Therefore, we do not
find that the said finding is perverse.
In view of the above, we are inclined to accept the findings of the Court appointed Commissioner, that the candidates (writ petitioners) did not
furnish the bogus Community Certificates in question and that the candidates had applied under the NRI quota. Therefore, the petitioners are
entitled to have the results of the examinations declared and they are also entitled to the issue of Degree Certificates, if they had passed the
examinations.
Mr. Mani Sundar Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the eligibility criteria for admission to the course, for Open
Category (O.C.) candidates, was 60% in the Higher Secondary Course or equivalent examinations and that the petitioners did not satisfy the
eligibility criteria. But the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, brought to our notice, the Prospectus issued by the second
respondent-College, which indicated 59.1% as the minimum marks required for admission of O.C. candidates to the course. However, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent-College, disputed the correctness of the Prospectus produced by the petitioners. According
to him, the Prospectus produced by the petitioners, related to another academic year and not to the academic year in which the petitioners were
admitted.
But in our considered opinion, that question is of no consequence at this stage, for more than one reason namely,
(a) All the petitioners have now completed the course and some of them have secured high percentage of marks in the semesters for which, results
have already been declared.
(b) All the candidates, except one, are from Andhra Pradesh and Kerala and they have applied for admission, upon seeing the advertisements in
local newspapers and the Prospectus issued by the second respondent-College and they could not have known the eligibility criteria especially
when they were enticed to join the quota for NRIs.
(c) The contention of the second respondent that the Prospectus produced by the petitioners related to some other academic year would not go to
the rescue of the second respondent-College, since it is pointed out by the Standing Counsel for the University that less than 60% was never
prescribed as the eligibility criteria for any academic year in respect of candidates coming under the Open Category (O.C.).
Therefore, the question of eligibility cannot really deprive the petitioners of the relief that they are entitled to, on the basis of the above findings.
Coming to the last aspect of the case, namely, the course of action to be taken by the University, under such circumstances, it is seen that the
second respondent-College is affiliated to the Anna University. The Anna University Act, 1978, as amended by the Anna University (Amendment)
Act, 2001, empowers the Syndicate of the University u/s 30 to make, amend or repeal Statutes. Section 29 of the Act lists out the matters, which
the ""Statutes"" may provide for. Clause (xvi-a) of Section 29 relates to ""conditions of affiliation of Colleges to the University"". By virtue of the said
provisions, the Syndicate has issued ""Statutes for Affiliation"". Section 7 of the Statutes, prescribes the ""Procedure for grant/withdrawal of Affiliation
to a Programme"". Statute No. 7.9, reads as follows:
7.9 Suspension/Withdrawal of Affiliation of an Academic Programme:
The affiliation (provisional / permanent) granted to any academic programme(s) in a college may be suspended/withdrawn after adopting the
procedures laid down in the Regulations, if the college fails to comply with the provisions made in this behalf or the college has failed to
observe/implement any of the conditions of affiliation, or the college has conducted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interests of university
education and/or students.
The ""Regulations for Affiliation"", issued in terms of the Statutes, prescribes the procedure for withdrawal of Affiliation, under Regulation No. 26.
Regulation No. 26 reads as follows:
R 26. Procedure For Withdrawal Of Affiliation Of An Academic Programme (vide Section 7.9 of the Statutes):
The University may withdraw the affiliation (provisional/permanent) of an academic programme(s) of a college, for such period that it may deem fit,
provided there are proven evidences for gross violation of statutory requirements of affiliation norms and/or the college has conducted itself in a
manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the University education as revealed after detailed inquiry conducted by a duly appointed committee
by the University. The students on rolls are liable to be transferred to other affiliated colleges. No fresh students shall be admitted to that particular
academic programme(s) by the college.
Therefore, it is open to the University to invoke the above provisions against the second respondent-College, since the University has an obligation,
both statutory and social, to maintain standards and to observe discipline in the institutions affiliated to it. It is needless to point out that while
initiating any such action, the University should follow the principles of natural justice.
In view of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed and the first respondent-University is directed-
(a) to permit the petitioners to take all examinations, which they have not so far taken;
(b) to declare the results of the examinations already taken by the petitioners, if the results of such examinations have not been declared so far;
(c) to issue provisional and degree certificates to all the petitioners, after they pass all the examinations; and
(d) to initiate appropriate action against the second respondent-College in accordance with the Statutes and the Regulations and also ensure that
innocent students do not become victims, in future.
The writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.