AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajan, J.—This writ petition is filed to set aside the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 429, Higher Education dated
4.10.2000, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider and examine the proposals submitted by the Petitioner for autonomous status and
submit its recommendations to the University Grants Commission without reference to the impugned Government Order, dated 4.10.2000.
The Petitioner-college was established by Subbalakshmi Lakshmipathy Foundation Trust, Madurai. According to the Petitioner, the college,
namely, Subbalakshmi Lakshmipathy College of Science is affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University and functioning from the year 1994. The
college is having courses in Hotel Management & Catering Sciences (3 year Degree Programme), M.B.A. (2 year Post-graduate programme) and
P.G. Diploma in Bakery Science and Management (1 year programme).
It is also the case of the Petitioner that the said college has been recognised by the University Grants Commission, as an institution which
satisfies the status of a University Grants Commission Act. So, with a view to get autonomous status, the Petitioner sent proposals for conferment
of autonomous status to the Madurai Kamaraj University in October 1998. A Standing Committee comprising of 5 members was disputed to visit
the Petitioner-college and submit a report. After such visit on 1.4.1999, the committee submitted its report to the University. Thereafter, the
madurai Kamaraj University forwarded its recommendations to the State Government in August 1999. The State Government has to make
recommendations for conferment of autonomous status to the colleges, for the consideration of the University Grants Commission, as per the
guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. Thereafter, the Government directed the Joint Director of Collegiate Education (Finance)
and the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai to visit the College. The said Committee visited the Petitioner''s institution on 26.10.99.
They had submitted their report. According to the Petitioner, the Director of Collegiate Education had also recommended to the State
Government, his recommendations to the effect that the Petitioner-college can be granted autonomous status.
According to the Petitioner, though they had made so many representations to the State Government, requesting them to submit their
recommendations. Since it was not done, the Petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 9091/2000 seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing
the State Government to consider the proposals submitted along with the recommendations of the University. In the order dated 8.6.2000, the
learned Judge directed the Government to consider the Petitioner''s request and dispose of the same in accordance with law within 4 weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of the order. Since no order was passed as directed. The Petitioner filed a Contempt Application No. 552/2000. After
receipt of notice, the Government passed the order dated 13.10.2000, stating that in view of certain defects as pointed out in the said order, the
Government is not in a position to recommend for conferment of autonomous status. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a reply on 30.10.2000 stating
that the defects had been rectified. After receipt of the said letter of the Petitioner, the Director of Collegiate Education again appointed an
inspection commission to inspect the Petitioner''s institution. The inspection was held on 20.11.2000. On 16.11.2000, the Petitioner was informed
that the inspection of the Petitioner''s institution is only with reference to the Government Order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 429, Higher Education
Department, dated 4.10.2000.
Since the Petitioner cannot satisfy the conditions contemplated under the said Government Order dated 4.10.2000, the Petitioner has challenged
the said Government Order in this writ petition on the ground that the Government has no authority to contemplate such conditions, as only the
University Grants Commission has power to contemplate such conditions.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that conferment of autonomous statute to a college to constitute a subject
relating to Higher Education Department would fall under Entry 66 of List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution and so the State Legislature
have no authority to even legislate with reference to the said subject. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that under Entry 66 of List I of
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution the State Government cannot have any jurisdiction to deal with the said matter and so the impugned order
has to be quashed.
The Petitioner made an application for conferment of autonomous status to their college. The University of autonomous status to their college.
The University Grants Commission had issued guidelines in 1988 for granting autonomous status, and also for implementation of the same. The said
guidelines were issued by the University Grants Commission, exercising powers conferred under the University Grants Commission Act 1956.
Section 12 of the said Act deals with the functions of the Commission. According to the said provision, it is the duty of the Commission to take all
such steps as it may think for promotion and coordination of University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of
teaching, examination and research in Universities.
The University Grants Commission taking into consideration the present situation recommend for college autonomy, which according to the
Commission, is a potential for promoting academic advancement. To implement the said recommendation, the University Grants Commission
issued guidelines, the patent University will confer status of autonomous upon a particular college, that too, with the concurrence of the State
Government and the University Grants Commission. According to the guidelines, the Acts and Statutes of the Universities also should be amended
to provide for grant of autonomous to the affiliated colleges. Even according to the said guidelines, it is specifically stated that the university should
ensure that the management structure of the applicant-college is adequately participatory and provides opportunities for academic to make a
creative contribution.
Under the said guidelines, the procedure for conferment of autonomous status also has been contemplated, which reads as follows:
a) Each University shall constitute a Standing Committee including a representative of the State Council of Higher Education or of the State
Government, where such a council does not exist, in order to make the implementation of the scheme of autonomous colleges effective in the State.
b) The University will invite proposals from Colleges for conferment of the status of autonomy in the proforma given in Annexure I. All the
proposals received directly from colleges will be placed before the Standing Committee. The Committee may visit the colleges and discuss their
proposals with the respective management, faculty members and students.
c) The recommendations may be forwarded to the State Government by the University. On receipt of the State Government''s recommendations,
the University will send the recommendations of both the University and the State Government to the University Grants Commission.
d) A Committee of the University Grants Commission will consider the proposals for conferment of autonomy upon the college.
e) The University will notify the conferment of autonomy upon the colleges concerned, initially for a period of five years, after obtaining the
concurrence of the University Grants Commission.
But, I am not able to see any qualifications contemplated for making such application. When the University Grants Commission makes an
obligation on the parent University to confer status of autonomy upon a college only with the concurrence of the State Government, it cannot be
said that the State Government cannot contemplate such conditions to achieve the object for which the Commission wants to establish autonomous
institutions. Moreover, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has not pointed out any regulation for the present purpose issued by
the Commission, exercising powers u/s 26(h) of the said Act. So, the present guidelines relied on by the Petitioners cannot have any statutory
force.
The Apex Court while considering the scope of such guidelines in the decision in J.R. Raghupathy and Others Vs. State of A.P. and Others, ,
has held as follows:
That precisely the position here. The guidelines are merely in the nature of instructions issued by the State Government to the Collectors regulating
the manner in which they should formulate their proposals for formation of a Revenue Mandal or for location of its Headquarters keeping in view
the broad guidelines laid down in Appendix I to the White Paper. It must be stated that the guidelines had no statutory force and they had also not
been published in the official Gazette. The guidelines were mere departmental instructions meant for the Collectors.
Even the Division Bench of this Court also in W.P. No. 10016 of 1993 etc. dated 26.7.1993 while dealing with the scope of guidelines issued
by A.I.C.T.E. and with reference to the power of the Government to give instructions regarding admission for professional course has held as
follows:
In our view, the guidelines are merely in the nature of instructions regarding the manner in which the admission to professional courses has to be
made. We are of the view that the guidelines of the A.I.C.T.E. are merely in the nature of advisory guidelines in the form of instructions to the
institutions. Once we take the view that they are only guidelines the orders issued by the State Government, under the power vested with Article
162 of the Constitution of India prevails over that and at any rate the State would be within its rights and powers to prescribe further and additional
norms or standards and criteria for selection.
For the abovesaid facts, it is clear that the said guidelines will not take away the authority of the State Government to contemplate norms.
Further, in the decision in Dr. Ambesh Kumar Vs. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut and Others, the Apex Court has held that the
State Government merely provides an additional eligibility qualification and it does not mean that it encroached upon power of Central Legislature
or Central Government to make orders in regard to matters provided in Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII.
The State, which establish and maintain the institutions have the power to regulate all aspects and affairs of the institutions except to the extent
provided for by Entries 63 to 66 of List I of the Constitution. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the above issue in the decision in Ajay
Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. JT 1994 (21) S.C. 662, and held in paragraph 23 as follows:
We are inclined to agree with the above statement. The power to regulate admission to the courses of study in medicine is traceable to ""Entry 25 in
List III (Entry II in List II, it may be remembered, was deleted by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution and Entry 25 of List III substituted).
The States, which establish and maintain these institutions have the power to regulate all aspects and affairs of the institutions except to the extent
provided for by Entries 63 to 66 List I. Sri Salve contended that the determination and co-ordination of standards of higher education in Entry 66
of List I takes in all incidental or ancillary matters, that Regulations of admission to courses of higher education is a matter incidental to the
determination of standards and if so, the said subject matter falls outside the field reserved to the List I, which overrides Entry 25 of List III, the
States are denuded of all and every power to determine and co-ordinate the Standards of higher education, which must necessarily take in
regulating the admission to these courses. Even if the Act made by the Parliament does not regulate the admission to these courses, the States have
no power to provide for the same for the reason that the said subject matter falls outside their purview. Accordingly, it must be held, says Shri
Salve, that the provision made by the State Government reserving certain percentage of seats under Article 15(4) is wholly incompetent and
outside the purview of the field reserved to the States under the Constitution. We cannot agree. Whole Regulation of admission to these medical
courses may be incidental to the power contained in Entry 66 List I, it is integral to the power contained in Entry 25 List III. The State which has
established and is maintaining these institutions out of public funds must be held to possess the power to regulate the admission policy consistent
with Article 14. Such power is an integral component of the power to maintain and administer these institutions. Be that as it may, since we have
held, agreeing with the holding in Nivedita Jain that Entry 66 in List I does not take in the selection of candidates or regulation of admission to
institutions of higher education, the argument of Sri Salve becomes out of place. The States must be held perfectly competent to provide for such
reservations.
Moreover, in the matter relating to education and with regard to the norms prescribed, the Court should be very slow in interfering with the
same, unless it is shown that it is arbitrary and unreasonable. This view is supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the decision in
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, in which it
has been held as follows:
As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent
and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise with experience of
actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to take a pedantic
and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of
the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be
propounded.
Even while dealing with the State Government''s power to prescribe qualifications and method of admission with respect to professional
courses after coming into force of the A.I.C.T.E. Act, the Division Bench of this Court, in the order in W.P. No. 100096/1993 etc., dated
26.7.1993 has held that the Government is well within the jurisdiction to prescribe and stipulate eligibility marks in the relevant subjects in qualifying
examinations in addition to the guidelines fixed by the A.I.C.T.E. as a condition precedent for applying for admission.
While considering the scope of Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act (Act 73 of 1993), the Division Bench of this
Court, in the decision in Lords and Angels Teacher Training Institute, etc. and Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu etc. 1997 (1) L.W. 787, has held
as follows: -
Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Government has filed a memo adopting the counter affidavit of the
Central Government in W.P. No. 1106 of 1996, wherein reasons have been given for framing the Regulations 5(e) and 5(f) of the Regulations. It
has been clearly indicated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the requirement of a no objection certificate from the State Government was
found to be necessary, keeping in view the overall perspective of the situation prevailing in the State or Union Territory with particular reference to
the man power requirements in Teacher Education. They have also referred to the ''norms'' and ''standards'' fixed by the National Council for
achieving planned and coordinated development of Teacher Education. It is also pointed out that such institution have to necessarily get academic
support only from the State Government like man power, admission modalities and grant-in-aid etc. Therefore, it is contended that the Regulation,
requiring the no objection certificate is perfectly legal and necessary for the upliftment of Teacher Education in the State Government. We accept
the stand taken in the above counter affidavit.
S.S. Subramani, J., as His Lordship then was, in the batch of Writ Petitions in W.P. No. 9265 of 1998 etc., in the order dated 12.8.1998, has
dealt with the scope of norms issued under the A.I.C.T.E. Act, and the power of the State Government regarding selection of students, and held as
follows:
Even from a reading of Section 10(o) of the Act, it is seen that AICTE has to issue only guidelines for admission of students for technical
institution. It is seen that on the basis of Clause (o), guidelines have been issued. The reason is very clear, viz., that it is only for maintaining the
norms and standards for progress in institutions with a view to maintain standards in various technical institutions. As a supervisory board, it gives
guidance to various institutions as to how a technical education institutions should be started and how students should be admitted. The State which
is running educational institutions has a right of say regarding selection of students, it is only advisory in nature and it follows that it is not a
legislation and the contention that it is occupying the field may not be correct. In Adhiyaman Educational Research Institute case (supra), the
Honorable Supreme Court considered about two legislations on the same field. It was under these circumstances, their Lordships said that the
State Legislation cannot remain and the same is in conflict with the Central Legislation. Therefore, the contention on the basis of the above decision
cannot hold good.
In the present case, no material is placed before me to show that the conditions contemplated in the impugned order are inconsistent to any
condition contemplated either by the Central Government or by the University Grants Commission. So, in view of the above cited decisions, it is
clear that the State Government has power to contemplate norms for the purpose of giving concurrence to the recommendation of the patent
university. When the Government is having such an authority or power; the Petitioner cannot assail the impugned Government order dated
4.10.2000. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the impugned stipulations are arbitrary in nature.
For the forgoing reasons, I do riot find any merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P. No. 8094/2001
is also dismissed.