AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner in these writ petitions are one and the same person. The Petitioner is a CorRespondent and Secretary of St.
Joseph''s College of Education, Appicode in Kanyakumari District.
In the first writ petition (W.P. No. 4255/2009), the Petitioner, challenges an order dated 06.04.2009, passed by the Tamil Nadu Teacher
Education University (hereinafter referred to as Education University), wherein and by which the Petitioner college was informed that the College
has not been granted affiliation for the academic year 2008-2009 for conducting M. Ed Degree course pending receipt of connected records
within the time specified by this Court. Therefore, the affiliation fee sent by the Petitioner College was returned. They were also informed that their
application for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2009-2010 for the M. Ed degree course will be processed at the appropriate time.
The writ petition was admitted on 20.05.2009. Pending the writ petition, in M.P. No. 1 of 2009, this Court held that since earlier, this Court in
W.P.(MD) No. 9762 of 2008 by an order dated 12.11.2008, directed the Education University to consider the application of the Petitioner for
affiliation within a period of one month and since the University did not pass order in the application and informed that the affiliation will be
considered only from the next academic year, the University was directed to permit 25 students admitted in the Petitioner College for the academic
year 2008-2009 to take their M. Ed University Examinations including thesis and Viva - Voce scheduled to commence on 27.05.2009 or any
other future date.
In M.P. No. 2 of 2009 seeking for an interim direction to grant affiliation with a reasonable time, no orders were passed.
On notice from this Court, the Education University has filed a counter affidavit dated 21.07.2009 together with supporting documents.
Pending the writ petition, the same Petitioner filed the second writ petition in W.P. No. 5731 of 2010, to set aside the order dated 25.03.2010
wherein and by which, the Education University informed the Petitioner College that since the grant of affiliation for M. Ed Degree course was still
pending and sub-judice, the list of 25 candidates provisionally admitted in the M. Ed. Course for the academic year 2009-2010 along with the
prescribed examination fees cannot be considered. The Petitioner College was also informed that even before the grant of affiliation to the M. Ed.
Degree Course, candidates cannot be admitted to the examination. This Court had directed them to write examination and results to be withheld
for the batch of students admitted during the academic year 2008-2009. Their second list of candidates sent for 25 students for the M. Ed. Degree
Course for the year 2009-2010 will not arise and they will not be allowed to write the examinations.
That writ petition was directed to be posted along with the earlier writ petition. Pending the writ petition, in M.P. No. 2 of 2010, this Court
directed that the 25 students who were admitted for the academic year 2009-2010 as per the Annexure to that order will be permitted to take M.
Ed University Examination including practical examination comprising of Thesis and Viva - Voce as slated to commence on 25.07.2010, but the
results by the University shall not be declared until further orders from this Court.
On notice from this Court, the Education University had filed a counter affidavit dated 29.04.2010 together with supporting documents.
The very same College came up with a third writ petition (W.P. No. 9051 of 2010), seeking for a direction to the Education University to cause
an inspection in the Petitioner College for the purpose of granting affiliation to the M. Ed Degree Course within a reasonable time as may be fixed
by this Court. In that writ petition, notice was directed to be served on the Respondents.
On notice from this Court, the Respondent Education University has filed a counter affidavit dated 17.08.2010.
In view of the inter-connectivity among the three writ petitions, they were heard together and a common order is passed.
Heard the arguments of Mr. Isaac Mohan Lal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner College, Mr. M.P. Senthil, learned Counsel appearing for
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (for short M.S. University), Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and Mr. K.M. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Teacher Education
University.
The stand of the Petitioner College was that the said college has been recognised by the NCTE for conducting B. Ed Degree Course by an
order dated 17.11.2005. Even at that time, NCTE by granting some relaxation granted retrospective recognition from 2005-2006. Subsequently,
the College was granted provisional affiliation by the M.S. University. The NCTE, which granted a conditional recognition by an order dated
23.03.2007, subsequently granted a regular recognition for having 100 students in the B. Ed Course. The Petitioner College claimed that they had
applied for grant of affiliation for the M. Ed Course for the year 2007-2008 and an application was sent on 25.06.2007. A copy of the letter dated
25.06.2007 is found enclosed in the typed set in W.P.(Md) No. 4255/209. The enclosure to the letter contained two documents. The first
document was the teaching and non-teaching staff particulars and the second document was a copy of the earlier order of affiliation given by the
University.
Subsequent to the letter dated 25.06.2007, on 16.05.2008, the NCTE granted a conditional recognition for starting M. Ed Course for one
year duration with an annual intake of 25 students at Appikode campus. In the very same order, it was indicated that the institution should not
make any admission until the unconditional letter of recognition was issued by the Southern Regional Committee, NCTE. It was also stated that the
University must appoint faculty and give the details of the faculty in their Website.
In the meanwhile, the M.S. University by a letter dated 01.07.2008 granted provisional affiliation for the B. Ed course for the additional intake
of the students for the year 2007-2008.
The NCTE by a further letter dated 30.08.2008 granted unconditional recognition for undertaking M. Ed course for one year from the
academic session 2008-2009. In the order dated 30.08.2008 in paragraphs 3(III) and 4, it was directed as follows:
3.III)The institution shall make admission only after it obtains affiliation from the examining body in terms of Clause 8(12) of the NCTE
(Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2007.
Further, the recognition is subject to fulfillment of all such other requirements as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like UGC,
affiliating University/Body, the State Government etc, as applicable.
A copy of the order was also forwarded to affiliating university namely the M.S. University.
After the receipt of the said order, the Petitioner College sent a further letter dated 16.09.2008, seeking for affiliation for the M. Ed course for
the academic year 2008-2009. In the same letter, they had stated that they had referred to the earlier application dated 25.06.2007 and a copy of
the said application was also enclosed. The acknowledgment from the University received by them shows the date as 25.09.2008.
In the meanwhile, since Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University was enacted by Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 2007 and was notified to come into
effect from 01.07.2008, the Petitioner College, by a letter dated 25.09.2008 wrote to the M.S. University stating that their application pending
with the M.S. University must be forwarded to the Education University. When they do not get any reply, they filed a writ petition before this
Court in W.P. No. 9752 of 2008, seeking for a direction to the M.S. University to forward their application dated 25.06.2007 to the affiliating
university for considering their application for the M. Ed course. This Court by an order dated 12.11.2009 passed the following order as found in
paragraphs 3 and 4.
The learned Counsel for the fourth Respondent University would submit that according to the records maintained by the fourth Respondent
University, no such application dated 25.06.2007 was ever received by the fourth Respondent University. However, recently, while making
representation on 16.09.2008, the Petitioner College has submitted a copy of an application dated 25.06.2007. The learned Counsel for the fourth
Respondent University would further submit that appropriate proceedings would be initiated on the same by the fourth Respondent University.
In view of the above position, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the fourth Respondent University to forward the copy of the
application of the Petitioner dated 25.06.2007 followed by representation dated 16.09.2008 along with connected records to the fifth Respondent
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the fifth Respondent inturn is directed to consider the same and
pass appropriate orders within a period of one month thereafter. Consequently, connected M.P is closed. No costs.
Even before any affiliation could be considered by the Education University, the Petitioner College had admitted the students and subsequently,
forwarded their application and examination fee for the 25 students admitted by them for the academic year 2008-2009.
In the mean while, the Education University by a letter dated 25.02.2009 informed the Petitioner College that the M.S. University had not
forwarded the prescribed application for affiliation submitted by the College and as much as the University had not received the prescribed
application form for affiliation, the question of grant of affiliation for M. Ed course will not arise and hence their application for writing examinations
was returned. This was followed by another letter dated 11.03.2009 stating that M.S. University has forwarded a letter dated 25.06.2007 sent by
the College with a reminder letter dated 16.09.2008. The letters had only two photo copies of their letter seeking affiliation and also the provisional
affiliation given by the M.S. University.
At this stage, the Petitioner College threatened the Education University with a contempt action for having flouted the order made by this Court
in W.P. No. 9762 of 2008 dated 12.11.2008. The notice sent by the counsel for the Petitioner College was considerably received by the
Education University by a reply notice dated 13.03.2009. In response to their reply, the Petitioner College sent a letter dated 21.03.2009 stating
that since the M.S. University had not forwarded the letter sent by them, they were submitting a copy of the application submitted to the M.S.
University along with the enclosures. They had also submitted another application form for affiliation with a demand draft of Rs. 15,000/- toward
registration fee and Rs. 25,000/- against processing fee. Therefore, they once again requested affiliation to be granted for M. Ed Degree Course
for the academic year 2008-2009. A copy of the application submitted to the Education University showed that it was signed on 21.03.2009,
whereas the affiliation form and the demand draft also showed the same date. In the application form for affiliation, which was to be made used for
2009-2010, the Petitioner deliberately erased the year 2009-2010 and put in the ink as if it was the application form for the academic year 2008-
2009. This act of the Petitioner is clearly reprehensible and they have no right to alter a printed form to suit their own convenience. Even while this
correspondence was pending, the Petitioner moved the first writ petition in W.P.(Md) No. 4255 of 2009 and got an interim order for writing
examination for 25 students starting with first name Gariyola Richard.
Instead of getting that writ petition disposed of one way or other, the Petitioner moved this Court again with the second writ petition W.P.
(Md). No. 5731 of 2010 and got a further order for writing the examination for the second batch of 25 students starting with the name M. Ajitha.
In both cases, this Court had only permitted the students to write examination pending disposal of the writ petitions and in the event of failure, the
examinees cannot plead any equity in their favour.
Subsequently, the third writ petition came to be filed seeking for a direction to the Education University to cause inspection forthwith for the
grant of affiliation for M. Ed course within a reasonable time. This Court directed the learned Counsel appearing for the M.S. University to
produce the forwarding letter of the application sent by the M.S. University to Education University. Accordingly, the forwarding letter dated
29.12.2008 was produced, wherein the Registrar In-charge had written to Education University, which is as follows:
With reference to the above, I am, by direction, to forward herewith a copy of the application letter dated 25.06.2007 followed by representation
dated 16.09.2008 sent by the Secretary, St. Joseph College of Education, Appicode to start M. Ed. Degree course for further course of action at
your end.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Education University, it was stated that the Petitioner College has no right to admit any students pending
affiliation by the University and they have violated Sections 36 and 37 of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University Act, 2008, which reads as
follows:
No candidate shall be admitted to any examination of the University unless he is enrolled as a member of an affiliated college and has satisfied the
requirements as to the attendance required under the regulations for the same or unless he is exempted from such requirements of enrolment or
attendance or both by an order of the Academic Council made under the regulations prescribed. Exemptions granted under this Section shall be
subject to such conditions as the Syndicate may think fit.
No attendance at instruction given in any college or institution other than that conducted, affiliated or approved by the University, shall qualify for
admission to any examination of the University.
It is also referred to that the recommendation norms and procedure set out by the NCTE vide its regulations 2007 clearly stipulates that the
institution can make admission of students only after it has obtained affiliation from the examining body in terms of Clause 8(12) with reference to
the application allegedly submitted with the M.S. University for grant of affiliation to M. Ed course. It was claimed that no proper application was
made as prescribed by the University. In Paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10 it was averred as follows:
The Petitioner college in their letter dated 16.09.2008 addressed to the Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University has requested to grant
a affiliation for starting M. Ed Degree Course wherein the Petitioner college has enclosed a copy of the NCTE order No. D. SRO/NCTE/M.
Ed/2008-2009/4372 dated 30.08.2008 in which the NCTE has granted affiliation for the academic year 2008-2009. The Petitioner college in
their letter dated 25.06.2007 addressed to the Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University has stated that the management have plan to start
M. Ed Degree Course from the academic year 2007-2008 and requested the University to grant affiliation for 2007-2008. It is pertinent to point
out that the Petitioner college has not obtained recognition order from NCTE for 2007-2008 whereas NCTE granted recognition for 2008-2009.
I submit that averments in para 12 of the affidavit are not true. The Petitioner college has not submitted the prescribed Application for grant of
affiliation along with processing/registration fee either to this University or to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. In view of the fact that the
Petitioner college has been not granted affiliation either by the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University or by Tamil Nadu Teachers Education
University the examination applications submitted by the Petitioner were only returned back.
I submit that the Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in his letter dated 29.12.2008 referring the orders passed by the Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court has forwarded the above two letters for further course of action at this end. Further to this, the Petitioner college in
their letter dated 21.11.2008 has requested to grant affiliation for M. Ed Degree Course from the year 2008-2009.
I submit as far as the grant of affiliation for M. Ed Degree Course, the above records were only made available to this University for 2008-
2009, I submit that when the process of grant of affiliation was still pending, the Petitioner college in their letter dated 19.02.2009 surprisingly
submitted the Demand Draft for Rs. 40,000/- towards examination fees for M. Ed candidates and sent a list of 25 M. Ed candidates. I submit that
at this point the University was made aware that the Petitioner college has admitted 25 students without getting affiliation. It is pertinent to point out
that the action of the part of the Petitioner college having admitted 25 M. Ed candidates without proper grant of order of affiliation is gross violation
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University Act and therefore the Petitioner college was informed in clear terms that in as much as
the University has not received the prescribed application form for affiliation for M. Ed Degree Course either from the Manonmaniam Sundaranar
University or from the Petitioner college, the question of grant of affiliation did not arise and the Demand Draft were returned herewith reiterating
that candidate admitted arbitrarily without affiliation will not be permitted to appear for the M. Ed Degree Examination May/June 2009.
In the light of the rival contentions, the following issues arise for consideration:
a) whether the Petitioner college was correct in admitting students even without waiting for affiliation from the appropriate University
b)Whether the College had forwarded any application in the prescribed form either to the M.S. University or to the Education University?
c) Whether the two batch of students who had written examinations pursuant to the order dated 20.05.2009 and 21.05.2010 are eligible for any
relief?
d) What relief the Petitioner college is entitled to get?
In respect of the first issue, the Petitioner College ought not to have admitted any students only on the strength of recognition granted by NCTE
vide letter dated 16.05.2008. In that letter itself, it was indicated that no admission should be made until unconditional letter of recognition is
granted by the Regional Committee of NCTE. In the subsequent order dated 30.08.2008, they have clearly told that they can make admission
only after they obtained affiliation from the examining body namely, the University. Therefore, the Petitioner clearly erred in admitting the students
without any authority of law.
The students who were admitted cannot claim any equity as it has been indicated in the interim order passed by this Court dated 21.05.2010
and no examinees can be permitted to writ examination without the college having either a provisional or permanent affiliation from the appropriate
University.
If at all, the College can only seek for a direction to the Education University to process their affiliation application and cause inspection as
prayed for in W.P. No. 9051 of 2010. Even in doing so, the College had unauthorisedly made corrections in the application for affiliation
submitted on 21.03.2009. The said application can be valid only for the academic year 2009-2010 and not for 2008-2009. The college has no
authority to make such corrections. The college has not forwarded any application either to the M.S. University or to the Education University in
the appropriate form prescribed. The Education University, in their letter dated 06.04.2009 informed that their application for grant of affiliation for
the academic year 2009-2010 for the M. Ed degree course will be processed at the appropriate time. Therefore, they are only eligible to get their
application considered in respect of the affiliation for the year 2009-2010 and not for the year 2008-2009 for which there was no proper
application sent by them in the prescribed format and the same was also not sent on time as per the University Calendar.
The attempt made by the Petitioner to admit two batch of students to go through the M. Ed decree course is clearly high handed and contrary
to law and even in respect of the terms of recognition granted by the NCTE. Therefore, the only direction the Petitioner College is eligible to get is
for a direction to consider their affiliation as per the Education University''s stand made in their letter dated 06.04.2009.
In this Context, it is necessary to refer to certain decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court which will have a bearing on this issue.
The Supreme Court vide its judgment in C.B.S.E. and Another Vs. P. Sunil Kumar and Others, . In paragraphs 3 and 4, the Supreme Court held
as follows:
There is no dispute that the institutions in which these students had pursued their studies have not yet received any affiliation from the Central
Board of Secondary Education, who is the Appellant in these appeals. Under the bye-laws of the Board, only regular students of affiliated schools
with the Board are entitled to appear in the Secondary School Examination and the Senior Secondary School Examination conducted by the
Board. Since the institutions in which the Respondent-students have prosecuted their studies are admittedly not affiliated to the Board but the
students have been allowed to appear at the examination pursuant to the interim direction of the Court, which is in contravention of the rules and
regulations of the Board, the question that arises for consideration is: Whether the High Court was justified in issuing these impugned directions?
This question no longer remains res integra. This Court in several cases deprecated the practice of allowing students to appear provisionally in the
examinations of the Board or the University and then ultimately regularising the same by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. In the case of
A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. this Court held that the court will not be justified in issuing direction to the University
to protect the interest of the students who had been admitted to the medical college in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act
and the regulations of the University. It was also observed that the Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it
owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of the rule of law. In the case of the State of T.N.
v. St. Joseph Teachers'' Training Institute this Court held that the direction of admitting students of unauthorised educational institutions and
permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and the students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally
entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Education Department of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and
the High Court committed an error in granting permission to such students to appear at the public examination. All these cases were again
considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and it was held that the
students of unrecognised and unauthorised educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to
appear in examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. The Court ultimately struck down the direction issued by the High
Court. In yet another case, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal another three-Judge Bench of this Court interfered with the
interim order passed by the High Court to allow students to undergo internship course even without passing the MBBS examination. The Court
observed: (SCC p.403, para 7)
We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to
anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that (sic), ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as
interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline,
or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates.
Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications
might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an
accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The courts should not embarrass academic
authorities by themselves taking over their functions.
On the admitted position and in view of the law laid down by this Court referred to above, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the Appellants, contended that the impugned direction of the High Court is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. The learned
Counsel appearing for the students in different appeals did not dispute the position that the schools from where their clients have perused their
studies are not yet affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. But they mainly contended that the students having been permitted to
appear at the examination and they having been successful and certificates having been issued in their favour, it would work out great injustice, if
the impugned directions of the High Court are set aside at this length of time. In support of this contention they placed reliance on a recent decision
of this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati. In the aforesaid case, this Court deprecated the practice
followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future but did not
interfere with the ultimate direction of the High court on the ground that fond hopes have been raised in the minds of the students and therefore it
would be inappropriate to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are unable to apply the reasoning given in the aforesaid case,
inasmuch as there is no iota of material placed before us to indicate that the Central Board of Secondary Education, the Appellants herein, either
directly or indirectly had held out to the students at any point of time that the institutions in which they are prosecuting their studies have been
affiliated or are going to be affiliated in the near future. We are conscious of the fact that our order setting aside the impugned directions of the High
Court would cause injustice to these students. But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the
Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would
tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour
of the students. In view of the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court as well as
the interim orders issued by the Single Judge in several petitions out of which the writ appeals arose and the writ petitions filed by the Respondents
stand dismissed. These appeals are allowed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Subsequently, in Sunil Oraon (Minor) Through Guardian and Ors. v. CBSE and Ors. reported in (2006) 13 SCC 673, the Supreme Court
once again referring to P. Sunil Kumar''s case (cited supra) reiterated the same principle in Paragraph 23 and 25, which are as follows:
Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institutions admitting the students without requisite recognition
or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school
authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show that the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and
as rightly highlighted by learned Counsel for CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that
cannot be a ground for granting relief to the Appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the school nonchalantly continued the violations.
Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against the school as
is available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion.
A Full Bench of this Court headed by A.P. Shah, C.J. (as he then was) reported in G. Jayakumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and The General
Manager (Developmental Project), Larsen and Tubro Ltd., E.C.C. Construction Group, : Rukmani College of Education run by Rukmani
Educational and Charitable Trust Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, after referring to various provisions including the circular issued by the NCTE held
that the academic year prescribed by the NCTE means the academic year prescribed by the concerned affiliating University or affiliating body and
it is only officiating authority like the University which can specify the academic year which is viable and any attempt made even before the
University accords affiliation is really committing fraud on the students and cheating those students who are given admission and it is also
impermissible for the Court to permit the students of an unaffiliated institution to appear for the examination under the interim orders of the Court
and also for directing the University to grant affiliation with retrospective effect. Such a direction would amount to directing an university to disobey
a statute to which they owe their existence.
In the light of the factual matrix and the legal precedents set out above, the Petitioner has not made out any case for grant of relief prayed for
by them. Hence, W.P. No. 4255 of 2009 and 5731 of 2010 will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M Ps will stand closed.
The two batch of students who are admitted to two years in the M. Ed course cannot claim any relief only on the strength of their writing the
examination and as set out by the Supreme Court in P. Sunil Kumar''s case referred to above, they can only proceed to seek remedy against the
college.
W.P. No. 9051 of 2010 is disposed of with a direction to the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University to consider the application form for
affiliation pending with the University or to be later submitted by the College to the University for the year 2009-2010 as accepted by them vide
letter dated 06.04.2009. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the
results shall be communicated to the Petitioner College. No costs. Consequently, connected M Ps will stand closed.