AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. A. Swami, CJ.
W. A. Nos. 1119 and 1140 of 1995 are preferred by the State Government and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu respectively against the order
dated 31-3-1995 passed by the learned single Judge, allowing W.P. No. 17226 of 1994. The petitioner in the writ petition has sought for quashing
the proceedings of the University of Madras in No. A.1I/ MVS/ Dr. M.G.R. Engg. Coll/94-95/1596 dated 22nd September, 1994 and to direct
the said University to consider can grant affiliation to the First year Law Course of the 5 year B. L. Degree Course stated by the petitioner Trust, in
the name and style of ""Tamil Nadu Law College"" Madras, for the academic year 1994-95 onwards.
The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashing the said proceeding of the University of Madras and issued a direction in the
following terms:--
No other provision of the Madras Uni-versity Act, 1923 was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent
University, which provides obtaining prior permission of the State Government for grant of affiliation by the University of Madras. In the aobsence
of such provisions in the Madras University Act, 1923 there is no necesity for the petitioner. Trust to get prior permission of the Government of
Tamil Nadu for grant of affiliation by the Madras University. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and accordingly, the
same is quashed. The respondent University is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner for affiliation afresh on merits and in
accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
At the outset we may point out that the University of Madras has not come up in appeal and thereby it must be held to have accepted ''the
decision of the learned single Judge. However, learned counsel appearing "" for the University of Madras has advanced an argument that the order
passed by the University, directing ihe wril petitioner to obtain ""no objection"" from the State Government for granting affiliation is not justified,
having regard to the provisions contained in the Madras University Act and the Statutes framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"" and
the Statutes""). It is only the State Government and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, as already pointed out, have come up in appeal.
Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that as the State Govt, enjoys certain powers under Ss. 7 and 53 and other provisions of the
Act, it is just and appropriate that the applicant must obtain and the University is justified in insisting upon obtaining ''No Objection Certificates''
from the State Government before granting affiliation. Learned single Judge has negatived this contention and allowed the writ petition.
Before us, the very same contention is advanced by the learned Govt. Pleader, learned counsel for the University of Madras and the learned
counsel for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, if Ss. 4A, 6A, 9B, 7,19,21,37,48,53 and 54 of the Act are
read together it would lead to an inference that the Govt. cannot be held to be unconnected with the issue of grant of affiliation as it would be open
to it at the later state, as the visitor of the University, to even cancel the affiliation. On the contrary, it is the contention of Mr. Somayali, learned
senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, that specific power of affiliation has been conferred upon the University, which is exercised through
the Syndicate of the University. The mere fact that the State Government enjoys certain, powers under the various provisions of the Act And the
Statutes, will not either enable the University to insist upon obtaining ''no objection'' by the institution seeking affiliation nor it enables the State
Government to insist that such ''no objection'' should be obtained before seeking or obtaining affiliation from the University.
The preamble to the Madras University Act specifically provides that it is intended to re-organise the University of Madras with a view to
establishing a leaching and affiliating University at Madras While enabling the University to continue to exercise due control over the quality of the
teaching given by the colleges which are affiliated or approved by the University of Madras, In addition to this, other objects of the Act are also
stated in the preamble. For our purpose, it is sufficient to point out that one of the essential functions of the University is to grant affiliation to the
colleges which are approved by the University and to continue to exercise due control over the quality of the teaching given by the colleges which
are affiliated and approved by the University. In this connection it is relevant to refer to the scheme of the Act. Chapter deals generally with the
University, Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor, Vice-Chacellor and the powers of the University. Chapter III deals with the powers and duties of the
Senate. Chapter IV deals with the powers of the Syndicate. Chapter V deals with the Academic Council, the Faculties, the Boards of Students,
the Finance Committee and other Authorities. Chapter VI provides for making of the Statutes, Ordinance and Regulations. The other Chapters, for
our purpose, may not be necessary. Therefore, it is clear that in the Scheme of the act, each authority has been given a specific power. One of the
powers of the Syndicate, as contained in Section 19 of the Act, is to affiliate colleges to the University and to recognise colleges as approved
colleges. According to Statute No. 42 of Chapter XXVI of the Statute the affiliation or approval may be granted to a college or to departments of
a college which provides course of instruction in Arts, Science, Law, Medicine, Engineering, Teaching, Agriculture, Veterinary Science,
Commerce, Oriental Learning of Fine Arts. The affiliation of approval shall be given specially for each subject or each group of subjects and for
each separate standard. Statute No. 37 of Chapter XXVI lays down the procedure to be adopted in granting affiliation or approval. Nowhere, we
get any reference regarding the State Government to have a say in the matter.
No doubt, the aforesaid sections relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, do refer to certain powers of the State Govern- ment but
those powers cannot be interpreted so as to, confer power on the State Government to have its say in the matter before the affiliation is granted to
a College. Section 7 of the Act does not enable the University to direct the Institution to obtain ''No objection'' from the State Government nor any
such power can be inferred. As far as Section 53 of the Act is concerned, it relates to a report to be made by the Senate once in five years to the
State Government on the condition of affiliated and approved colleges. The State Government is required to lay the report before the Houses of
the Legislature. The whole object of Section 53 of the Act is to keep informed the State Government and the Slate Legislature about the conditions
of the Colleges affilialed to the University, and also of the University, so that the State Government and the State Legislature must have knowledge
about the functioning of the, affiliated Colleges and the functioning of the University. It is not possible to infer that! Section 53 of the Act confer any
power on the State Government to accord its approval for granting affiliation. Similarly, Section 54 of the Act empowers the State Government to
call for certain information from the University, or any matter relating to the affairs of the University and the University is bound to furnish such
information. The other provisions relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, also do not in any manner advance the case of the State
Government that it has got powers to say ''yes'' or ''no'' in the matter of granting affiliation to the college.
Learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and others etc. etc., ; State of T.N. and Another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, and State of
Maharashtra v. Manobhai Pragati Vashi 1995 (6) JT 119 : 1995 AIR SCW 3701. We may at the outset, point out that none of these decisions
was concerned with the powers of the State Government to accord or deny affiliation or any role to play at the stage of granting affiliaf ion to the
Colleges by the University. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to refer to those decisions in greater detail. However, we may point out that
in State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragati Vashi 1996 (6) JT 119-: AIR 1995 SCW 701 relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, it has
been specifically observed thus at Page 3712 (of AIR SCW):
Lack of sufficient colleges called for the establishment of private law colleges. If the State is unable to start colleges of its own, it is only
appropriate that private law colleges which are duly recognised by the concerned University and/or the Bar Council of India and/or other
appropriate authorities, as the case may be, should he afforded reasonable facilities to function effectively and in a meaningful manner"".
Even in the earlier portion, the observations are made to this effect at Page 3712 (SCW) :--
The need for a continuing and well organised legal education, is obsolutely essential reckoning the new trends in the world Order, to meet the ever
growing challenges. The legal education should be able to meet the ever growing demands of the society and should be thoroughly equipped to
cater to the complexities of the different situations. Specialisation in different branches of law is necessary. The requirement is of such a great
dimension that sizable or vast number of dedicated persons should be properly trained in different branches of law, every year by providing or
rendering competent and proper legal education. This is possible only if adequate number of law colleges with proper infrastructure including
expertise law teachers and staff arc established to deal with the situation in an appropriate manner. It cannot admit of doubt that, of late there is a
fall in the standard of legal education.
Such being the situation when the law governing grant or refusal of affiliation itself does not require that''no objection certificate from the State
Government should be obtained for granting affiliation by the University. We see no reason to hold that the State Government has any power in the
matter of granting affiliation to the college.
In fact, Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which deals with functions of Bar Council of India, under Clauses (h) and (i) . sub-section (1)
thereof, specifically provides thus:--
(h) to promote legal education and to lay down standard or such education in consuia-tion with the Universities in India imparting such education
and the State Bar Council.
(i) to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect
Universities, in accordance with such directions as it may give in this behalf.
Pursuant to the aforesaid provisions contained in Sections 7(h) & (i) of Section 7(1) and Section 24(l)(c)(iii) and (iiia), and Section 49(1)(af)
(ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India has framed rules relating to standards of Legal Education and Recognition of
Degrees in Law or Admission as Advocates under Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules. These Rules provide for two streams of law courses
leading to LL.B. Degree viz., a 5 year course and a 3 year course for the purpose of enrolment as Advocates. Section A and Section B
respectively under Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, relating to standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law of admission
as Advocates provide for 5 years law course and a degree in law obtained from any University. These Rules lay down in detail the syllabi of the
two Law courses and also to the standard to be maintained.
Rule 17 of the Bar Council of India Rules specifically provides that no college after coming into force of these rules shall impart instruction in a
course of study in law for enrolment as an advocate unless its affiliation has been approved by the Bar Council of India. Rule 18 of the said Rules
provides for approval of affiliation and the procedure to be followed in that regard. In this case, the Bar Council has granted approval. Therefore,
the University cannot insist upon the petitioner that it should obtain ''no objection certificate'' from the State Government before seeking affiliation.
We are of the View that the action of the University as contained in the impugned proceeding, on insisting upon the Institution that it should get ''no
objection certificate'' from the State Government for considering the request made by it for affiliation cannot be sustained. Learned single Judge is
justified in allowing the writ petition. For the reasons stated above, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.
It is brought to our notice that the affiliation has already been granted, but that has not been communicated to the petitioner because of the
interim order passed in the appeal. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeals, the interim order passed in CMP. Nos. 14353 and 14621 of 1995
conies loan end and the said C.M. Ps. are also dismissed. We also make it clear that the University is required to consider the request for
affiliation, as directed by the learned single Judge, within six (6) weeks. If the affiliation has already been granted, it shall be prospective and not
retrospective.
Appeals dismissed.