AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The first writ petition is filed by the Principal of a Self Financing Engineering College at Jamespuram, Novalcaud, Kanyakumari District. The other four writ petitions are filed by the students studying in the College.
While the first writ petition challenges the directive issued by the first respondent University, dated 23.08.2011 and seeks to set aside the same, the other four writ petitions are filed seeking to enforce the said order of the University which was rendered in favour of those four students. In view of the inter-connectivity between these writ petitions, they were grouped together for disposal.
The writ petition filed by the Engineering College was admitted on 7.9.2011. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted only notice on the said petition. In the meanwhile, as the four students were not being admitted by the college in their respective semesters, they have moved the Court with four writ petitions. In those four writ petitions, notices were ordered and there was a direction to post those matters along with the writ petition filed by the College.
It is seen from the records that the students of the College were not permitted to writ examinations on the ground that they did not have minimum attendance for writing University examinations. Therefore, they sent representations to the College as well as to the Commissioner for Technical Education alleging that their life has been spoiled by the management, which wanted to victimize theM. The students were in different years of study from Second year to Third year and they are to write the examination for the IV Semester and VI semester as the case may be. Finally, their appeal to the University made resulted in the Committee being appointed by the University to enquiry into the complaint of students. The University had issued a notice to the college on 20.7.2011. In the meanwhile, the District Collector, Kanyakumari District had also sent a letter to the College on 4.7.2011.
The Committee had visited the college to find out the true nature of the allegations made by the students and had submitted a report to the University on 23.7.2011.
After the visit of the Committee, the College also sent an undated letter denying the allegations of the students. But the University was not prepared to believe the version of the management and under the circumstances of the case, gave the following directions to the College which reads as follows:
Based on the observation and recommendations of the committee constituted by the competent authority of Anna University of Technology Tirunelveli, the Principal, James College of Engineer, Kanyakumari District is directed to admit the following students to their higher semester on or before 25th August 2011.
Abilash, K.S./B.E./ECE/VI Semester (2010-11)
Thanga Pandiyan, J./B.E./ECE/IV Semester (2010-11)
Anand, N./B.E./ECE/IV Semester (2010-11)
Jegan Raj, C./B.E./ECE/IV Semester (2010-11)
Manu, K.K./B.E./ECE/IV Semester (2010-11)
Vignesh J.L./B.E./EEE/IV Semester (2010-11)
Sunu Suliman/B.E./MECH/IV Semester (2010-11)
Considering the welfare of the students listed above, they may be permitted to write the examination for their previous semester courses along with the current semester courses. The appearance for the previous semester courses will be treated as their first appearance.
Aggrieved by the same, a writ petition came to be filed by the management.
The stand of the college was that there is no substance in the allegations made by the students. Having not put in minimum required attendance, the students were making false allegations. Even if the allegations were true, students as much as not attending the college, they are not eligible for writing semester examinations. The counsel for the College also produced a copy of the letter, dated 10.5.2011 addressed to the Controller regarding the attendance particulars of various students.
On the contrary, on behalf of students, in the affidavit it was submitted that the Vice Principal of the College had misbehaved with a girl student and that she had attempted to commit suicide. When students came to know, their patience were run high. They had entered into the college office and damaged the properties. The Inspector of Police, Poothapandi conducted talks with students. In the meanwhile, the college was also closed for one week. The four students, who are the petitioners along with three other students, were sought to be victimized on account of participation in the said agitation. The entire college was behind theM. When the college was reopened and semester examination was to take place, they were denied hall ticket on fraudulent ground. It was also alleged that the college put a pre-condition that each one of them should pay Rs.50, 000/-as penalty for writing examination. It is only on this ground, they made allegations. If they are not allowed to write examinations, their career will be spoiled. The college management never informed their parents nor issued show cause notice in order to prevent them from writing examination. In the meanwhile, the girl student who was affected by the conduct of the Vice Principal, took Transfer Certificate and joined some other college. Even the father of that girl was forced to take Transfer Certificate. Hence a complaint was sent to all authorities which was the subject matter of enquiry by the University.
In these four writ petitions, a counter affidavit was filed by the Principal denying these allegations. It was also stated that the Vice Principal was a strict disciplinarian and he was opposing students using mobile phones inside the college premises. The other allegations of demand of Rs.50, 000/-was denied. Insofar as the allegation about the misbehavior of the Vice Principal with a girl student, the counter affidavit made general denial and no specific denial was made regarding closure of college followed by the agitation of students and police enquiry and also the particular girl student taking Transfer Certificate and being forced out of the college. Even in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.(MD)No.9914 of 2011, these allegations were not denied with specific clarity. The denial is one of evasive and not satisfactory to this court. The fact that the college was closed for a week due to students'' agitation leading to police enquiry and the girl student leaving out of the college whatever may be the reason immediately thereafter leads one to believe that there is substance in the allegations made by students.
In any event, this court is not called upon to render any finding of fact. It is suffice to hold that the University has over all control regarding disciplinary action taken by the private management against students. This is especially true when the examinations are conducted by the University and the colleges merely preparing students for writing examinations. No doubt, minimum attendance is also a requirement for writing examinations. But in the present case, the version given by the management was not believed by the university which conducts the University examinations. Therefore, there is no question of management preventing them from writing examinations especially when the allegations made were accepted by the University prima facie. May be the University do not want to put reasons on record with a view to safeguard the interest of the college not to be tarnished by the conduct of one of the faculty members, i.e. Vice Principal.
In similar circumstances, while dealing with the power of the University to enquire into such complaint of unfair treatment to students, this court in M. Manikandan, E. Senthil Kumar, S. Senthil Kumar, K. Sakthivel and V. Vadakasi Vs. Manonmaniam Sundarnar University and The Principal S. Chattanatha Karayalar College, Tenkasi, dealt with the scope of such regulations in respect of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. After extracting the relevant clause from the University statute, P.Sathasivam, J (as he then was) held in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10
as follows:
8.....Based on the said Clause, on receipt of the orders of the second respondent, the petitioners made a representation to the University and their representation was placed before the Discipline Committee and decision was taken directing the second respondent-College to take back all the five students (petitioners herein). In the light of the statutory provision referred to above, I am satisfied that the first respondent University has every power/right to issue appropriate direction to the second respondent College.
I have also considered the report of the Peace Committee convened by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi and the decision of the Enquiry Committee of the second respondent College. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent University has also produced a minutes of the Discipline Committee meeting which held on 6.3.2002. While considering all the above materials and taking note of the interest of the petitioners/ students as well as the second respondent Institution, this Court directed the petitioners to file an affidavit of undertaking conveying their regret for the incident which took place on 26.12.2001, in the College premises and also specific undertaking that they would not resort to any unlawful act which will bring disrepute to the College. Accordingly, the petitioners filed affidavit of undertaking and the same are hereby recorded.
Taking note of all the above aspects, more particularly in the interest of the carrier of the students and the discipline to be maintained in the second respondent-College, and also considering the fact that the petitioners repent their action and promised that they would not involve in any such incident in future, I am of the view that one more opportunity may be given to them to pursue their studies and complete their course in the second respondent''s College. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the second respondent College to implement the proceedings of the first respondent-University dated 11.3.2002 and take back all the five petitioners in the College forthwith.
The very same regulations framed by the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University dealing with enquiry into the complaints of students by an Empowering committee when challenged, came to be upheld by a division bench of this court headed by Shivaraj V. Patil, J (as he then was). The Bench held that such regulations are valid and enacted with a view to prevent any arbitrary action initiated by the college management.
Though the counsel for the College stated that attendance is paramount consideration and relied upon the judgments in (a) Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Dr. M. G.R. Medical University, Guindy, Madras and others Vs. Vasanthi Selvaraju and Others reported in 1998 Writ L.R. 23, (b) C. Praveen Chander Vs. The Principal, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and The Vice Chancellor, Anna University, and (c) G. Pravina Vs. The Registrar, Dr. Ambedkar Law University and The Principal, Central Law College, , it is unnecessary to refer to those judgments in detail, since here the University had made an enquiry and gave a specific direction for those students to be admitted to the semester examinations. It would amount to implied condonation of delay if any for the shortfall in attendance.
In the present case, the management of the Engineering College did not come up with any specific allegation of misconduct against any one of the students. For the ensuing semester and in the interest of students, the college can conduct special classes to bring them on par with the other students rather than spoiling the career of students in order to victimize theM. This court is not inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings, dated 23.08.2011 passed by the first respondent Anna University of Technology, Tirunelveli. Hence W.P.(MD)No.9914 of 2011 will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
In view of the dismissal of the above writ petition filed by the college and the confirmation of the proceedings, dated 23.08.2011, the other writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(MD)Nos. 10987 to 10990 of 2011 will stand allowed. The college is directed to admit the students who are the petitioners herein and to allow them to move to next higher semester by carrying forward the arrears if any as directed by the University and also to permit them to write the ensuing University examinations. This order shall be immediately complied with in view of the urgency of the situation and without giving any room for any further complaint by students or from their parents. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.