Madras High Court
Muthayammal Engineering College vs University Grants Commission on 10 March, 2021
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESEVED ON: 24.06.2021
DELIVERED ON: 30.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
and WMP.Nos.6182, 10210 and 10214 of 2021
Muthayammal Engineering College,
Represented by its Administrative Officer,
Rasipurm 637 408.
Namakkal District. .. Petitioner in All W.Ps.
vs.
1.University Grants Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110 02. .. Respondents No.1 in W.P.No.9631/2021
Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.9636/2021
Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.5545 of 2021
2.Anna University,
Represented by its Registrar,
Chennai-600 025. .. Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.9631/2021
Respondent No.1 in W.P.No.9636/2021
and W.P.No.5545 of 2021
3.Centre for Academic Courses,
Represented by its Director,
Anna University,
Chennai-600 025. .. Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.5545 o 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
Prayer in W.P.No.9631 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent ending with the order of
the 1st respondent in Letter No.F.2-76(31)2015(AC) dated 10.03.2021 on the
file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for continuation of autonomous status and
grant continuation of Autonomous Status to the petitioner College on the
basis of University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status
upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous
Colleges) Regulations, 2018 and in particular proviso to Regular 6.3, and in
line with the order of this Court in W.P.No.29486 of 2019 and confirmed in
W.A.No.51/2020, Review Application No.46/2020 and affirmed by the
Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.8324-8325/2020.
Prayer in W.P.No.9636 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Letter
No.881/AU/CAC/Autonomous/2021 dated 01.04.2021 and quash the same
and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
continuation of autonomous status and grant continuation of Autonomous
Status to the petitioner College on the basis of University Grants
Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and
Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges)
Regulations, 2018 and in particular proviso to Regular 6.3, and in line with
the order of this Court in W.P.No.29486 of 2019 and confirmed in
W.A.No.51/2020, Review Application No.46/2020 and affirmed by the
Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.8324-8325/2020.
Prayer in W.P.No.9636 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Letter
No.881/AU/CAC/Autonomous/2021 dated 01.04.2021 and quash the same
and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to pass orders to continue the
petitioner college as an Autonomous Institution as per the proviso to
Regulation 6.3. r/w. Regulation 7.10 of UGC (Conferment of Autonomous
Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standars in
Autonomous Colleges) Regulations 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.Masilamani, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Muthumani Doraisami
For Respondents : Mr.M.Vijayakumar, Standing Counsel
for Anna University
Mr.B.Rabu Manohar for UGC
COMMON ORDER
Challenge in W.P.No.9631 of 2021 is to the order of the first
respondent / University Grants Commission [UGC] dated 10.03.2021, in and
which the first respondent/UGC has given direction to the second
respondent/Anna University to revoke the autonomous status of the petitioner
College from the academic year 2021-2022 and also for a direction to the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for continuation of
autonomous status and grant continuation of Autonomous Status to the
petitioner College on the basis of University Grants Commission
(Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for
Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2018 and
in particular proviso to Regular 6.3, and in line with the order of this Court in
W.P.No.29486 of 2019 and confirmed in W.A.No.51/2020, Review
Application No.46/2020 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C)
No.8324-8325/2020. In compliance of the order of the first respondent/UGC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
dated 10.03.2021, the second respondent/University has passed the
consequential order dated 01.04.2021 revoking the autonomous status of the
petitioner college, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.9636 of
2021. W.P.No.5545 of 2021 has been filed challenging the proposal
submitted by the second respondent/University to the first respondent/UGC
dated 19.02.2021, rejecting to forward the application of the petitioner
institution for accord of Extension of Autonomous Status.
2. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are interlinked and
pertains to the same petitioner institution, all these writ petitions are disposed
of by this common order.
3. The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions, briefly
narrated, are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner institution was established by the Muthayammal
Educational Trust and Research Foundation from the academic year 2000-01
in Namakkal District after getting necessary approval / affiliation from All
India Council for Technical Education and Anna University and at present,
3021 students are studying in the petitioner institution. The University
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status Upon Colleges and
Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges)
Regulations, 2018 [in short “UGC Regulations, 2018] was notified in the
year 2018 and Regulation 7 of the said Regulation provides procedures for
submission of extension application and for continuation of autonomous
status.
3.2. On 29.12.2020, the petitioner college submitted an application to
the first respondent / UGC for extension of autonomous status with
supporting documents. Simultaneously, the petitioner has also submitted
application for extension of autonomous status to the second respondent /
University for extension of autonomous status along with necessary
documents. In terms of Regulation 7.3. of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the
second respondent had sent a speaking order in Letter
No.3492/AU/CAC/Autonomous/2021 dated 19.01.2021 informing that
forwarding of the the petitioner's application for extension of autonomous
status stands rejected alleging deficiency on the ground that average students
enrollment for the last three years is less than the mandatory requirement of
60%.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
3.3. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation
dated 21.01.2021 to the second respondent University by enclosing
documentary proof to establish that the petitioner institution has average of
61.12% of enrolment of students for the last three academic years. However,
the second respondent University did not sent any reply to the petitioner and
therefore, the petitioner sent a requisition directly to the first respondent /
UGC on 30.01.2021 by enclosing all the necessary documents.
3.4. While that being so, the second respondent / University sent a
communication/proposal dated 19.02.2021 to the first respondent/UGC
recommending not to grant extension of autonomous status on two grounds
viz. (1) The petitioner institution had failed to obtain accreditation by NAAC
with A Grade / NBA; and (ii) Average pass percentage of students for the last
three years is only 52.27% instead of 70% as prescribed in Anna University
Guidelines 2018. The said order of the second respondent is the subject
matter of challenge in W.P.No.5545 of 2021.
3.5. Based on the communication / proposal of the second respondent /
University, the first respondent/UGC has passed an order dated 10.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
addressed to the Vice Chancellor, Anna University to revoke the autonomous
status of the petitioner College from 2021-2022, which is not in consonance
with the UGC Regulations, 2018. Challenging the same, the petitioner has
filed W.P.No.9631 of 2021.
3.6. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the first
respondent / UGC on 19.03.2021, for which the petitioner received a letter
dated 28.03.2021 from UGC requesting to furnish certain information /
documents. While the matter is pending before the UGC, the second
respondent passed the consequential order dated 01.04.2021 revoking the
autonomous status of the petitioner college from the academic year 2021-
2022. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.9636 of 2021.
4. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Muthumani
Doraisami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following
submissions / contentions:
(i) The second respondent/University had failed to give opportunity to
the petitioner to submit their explanation before issuing the communication
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
dated 19.01.2021 rejecting to forward the application of the petitioner
institution,seeking extension of autonomous status and therefore, they have
violated the principles of natural justice.
(ii) The requirement of accreditation by NAAC with "A" grade is a
new requirement introduced in the 2018 Regulations.
(iii) Proviso to Regulation 6.3. of the UGC regulation granted 5 years
time from 2018 i.e., till 2023 to the existing institution for acquiring the new
criteria and the petitioner college is entitled to continue as an autonomous
college for the period of 5 years till 2023 and therefore, the communication /
proposal of the second respondent/University dated 19.02.2021 is
contrary/inconsistent to the proviso to Regulation 6.3 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018.
(iv) As regards the second ground mentioned in the communication /
proposal of the second respondent/University dated 19.02.2021 viz., the
average pass percentage of students for the last three years is 52.27% is
concerned, under similar circumstances in the case of Mahendran Institute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
of Technology, Namakkal v. Anna University and another, this Court, vide
order dated 26.11.2019 made in W.P.No.29486 of 2019 has observed that an
institution could be granted autonomous status even if the pass percentage in
the previous three years was less than 70% as stipulated in Anna University
Guidelines. The said decision was also confirmed by a Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.51 of 2020 dated 14.02.2020 and Review Application
No.46 of 2020 dated 17.06.2020 and also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8324-8325/2020 dated 14.07.2020
and also followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7377 of
2021 dated 7.05.2021 in the case of Annapoorna Engineering College v.
Anna University and another.
(v) The first respondent /UGC, vide impugned order dated 10.03.2021
has abdicated its powers and requested the second respondent University to
revoke the autonomous status of the petitioner College from 2021-2022
which is not in consonance with the UGC Regulations, 2018. The power to
grant or refuse autonomous status to a college is vested with UGC under the
Statute and Regulations and hence, UGC cannot delegate its powers to Anna
University and therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent/UGC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
dated 10.03.2021 and the consequential order of the second
respondent/University dated 01.04.2021 are liable to be set aside.
(vi) When the communication/proposal of the second respondent dated
19.02.2021 has been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.5545/2021, in
which the first respondent/UGC is also a party and when the matter is sub-
judice, it is unfair on the part of UGC to pass the impugned order dated
10.03.2021.
(vii) The power of the Director of Anna University for framing the
guidelines was also questioned by the learned Senior Counsel and in this
context, he has relied upon the provisions of the Anna University Act.
5. Mr.Vijayakumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Anna University submitted that the impugned communication /
proposal forwarded by the University dated 19.02.2021 is in consonance with
Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and therefore, based on the
communication of the University, UGC has taken final decision and
therefore, the decision taken by the respondents is perfectly in order. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
would further submit that as per Regulation 7(3), the college shall submit the
proposal to the affiliating University, which may forward the same to the
UGC within 30 days of the receipt of the proposal. It is further stated in
Regulation 7(3) that in case the proposal is rejected by the University, the
decision shall be communicated to the college and UGC through a speaking
order. By relying upon the said Regulation, learned Standing Counsel for the
second respondent/University would contend that as per the said Regulation,
the application of the petitioner have been considered and rejected, vide
order dated 19.02.2021 and as per the requirements under the Regulations,
the said rejection order also had been communicated to the Secretary UGC,
that means the requirement under Clause 7(3) of the Regulations has been
complied with by the University. The learned Standing Counsel for the
University would further contend that based on the proposal submitted by the
University, UGC has passed final orders dated 10.03.2021 and the same was
communicated to the University for revocation of the autonomous status of
the petitioner College and the second respondent/University has revoked the
autonomous status of the petitioner College, vide order dated 01.04.2021 and
therefore, the aforesaid decision has become final. The learned Standing
Counsel for the second respondent/University further emphasized that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
order of the first respondent/UGC and the consequential order of the second
respondent/University are perfectly valid in accordance with law and does
not warrant interference.
6. For the sake of better clarification, this Court also required the
presence of the Director of Anna University and therefore, Dr.S.Hosimin
Thilagar, Director of Anna University appeared before this Court through
Video Conferencing and based on the counter affidavit filed by Anna
University, the Registrar has admitted that under Regulation 7.3. of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, the UGC is the competent authority to pass orders for
rejecting or granting extension of autonomous status to the College.
7. Mr.Rabu Manohar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first
respondent/UGC fairly submitted before this Court that if this Court
ultimately comes to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the
UGC is not a speaking/reasoned order and also not in consonance with the
Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.No.51/2020, this Court may
remand the matter to the the first respondent/UGC and they will reconsider
the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
12
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused
the entire materials available on record.
9. A perusal of the materials would disclose that in terms of Regulation
7.3. of the UGC Regulations 2018, the second respondent/University has sent
a communication to the first respondent/UGC dated 19.01.2021, by way of
speaking order, informing that forwarding of application of the petitioner
institution for accord of Extension of Autonomous Status stands rejected on
the ground that the average of enrolment for the last 3 years is less than the
mandatory requirement of 60%. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
said communication dated 19.01.2021 was sent to the petitioner and the
petitioner institution has also submitted a detailed representation dated
21.01.2021 to the second respondent University with necessary documents to
prove that they have an average of 61.12% of enrolment of students for the
last three academic years and in pursuant to the aforesaid representation, the
second respondent/University has accepted the said explanation, but the
rejection order dated 19.02.2021 was communicated to the first
respondent/UGC on the following two grounds:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
13
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
(1) The petitioner institution had failed to obtain accreditation by NAAC
with A Grade / NBA; and
(2) Average pass percentage of students for the last three years is only
52.27% instead of 70% as prescribed in Anna University Guidelines
2018.
The said order of the second respondent/University dated 19.02.2021 is the
subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.5545 of 2021. Based on the proposal
sent by the second respondent/University dated 19.02.2021, the impugned
order dated 10.03.2021 was passed by the first respondent/UGC informing
the University that they may revoke the autonomous status of the petitioner
college and the second respondent/University also passed the consequential
order dated 01.04.2021, which are the subject matter of challenge in
W.P.Nos.9631 and 9636 of 2021 respectively.
10. It is relevant to extract Regulation 7 of the UGC Regulations,
2018:
“7. CONFERMENT/EXTENSION OF
AUTONOMOUS STATUS
7.1 A College intending to become autonomous shall make an
application in the format specified by the Commission any time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
14
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
during the year.
7.2 The college shall forward an advance copy of the proposal
to University Grants Commission indicating the date of receipt
of the proposal by the parent university for the record of the
UGC.
7.3. The College shall submit the proposal to the
Parent/Affiliating University which may forward the same
to UGC within 30 days of the receipt of proposal. In case
the proposal is rejected by the University, the decision shall
be communicated to the college and University Grants
Commission through a “Speaking Order”.
7.4 If the University and State Govt. fail to provide the
nominees for the UGC Expert Committee, the UGC may
proceed with the on-spot visit and take decision on the proposal
of the College.
7.5 If the College is found eligible as per the guidelines, the
Commission shall examine the proposal for
conferment/extension of autonomous status with an onsite visit
by an Expert Committee constituted by the Chairman of the
Commission consisting of three expert members (preferably at
the level of Professor/Principal of an autonomous college) out
of which one shall be the Chairperson, nominees from the
Parent/Affiliating University and the State Government. A UGC
official may be nominated to coordinate the visit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
15
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
7.6. The decision for conferment /extension of autonomous
status shall be taken by the Standing Committee
(comprising of three Commission members) on autonomous
colleges after due consideration of the recommendations of
the Expert Committee. The approval letters may be issued
on the basis of the decision of the standing committee. The
decisions may be ratified by the Commission subsequently.
7.7 If the proposal of a College for the conferment of
autonomous status is rejected for any reason whatsoever, the
college shall be eligible to reapply, but not before one year from
the date of rejection of its earlier proposal.
7.8 The autonomous College shall apply in the prescribed
format to University Grants Commission for extension of
autonomous status six months prior to expiry of the autonomy
cycle.
7.9 In case of expiry of accreditation cycle, the College seeking
extension of autonomous status must submit a proof of having
applied for accreditation by NAAC/NBA to be eligible for
extension.
7.10 Till the extension of autonomous status is awarded by the
UGC, the College shall continue to avail the autonomous
status. The UGC shall also consider the interim period while
granting extension of autonomous status to the College.
7.11 If an Autonomous College wishes to surrender the
autonomous status, it shall follow due process of forwarding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
16
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
the resolution by the Governing Body through the University
concerned to UGC for consideration. However, such
withdrawal shall take effect only after the last batch of students
then enrolled under autonomy passes out."
As per Regulation 7.3. it is clear that University shall only forward the
application of the institution for extension of autonomous status to the UGC,
who is the competent authority to take final decision.
11. In the case of Mahendran Institute of Technology, Namakkal v.
Anna University and another, this Court, vide order dated 26.11.2019 made
in W.P.No.29486 of 2019 has observed that an institution could be granted
autonomous status even if the pass percentage in the previous three years was
less than 70% as stipulated in Anna University Guidelines. The said
decision was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.51
of 2020 dated 14.02.2020 and Review Application No.46 of 2020 dated
17.06.2020 and also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) Nos.8324-8325/2020 dated 14.07.2020. It is useful to extract the
following observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.51 of 2020 as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
17
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
"14. In the said background, we are of the opinion that the 2018
Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission in exercise
of the powers conferred under Section 12(f), (g), (j) read with Section
26(1) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 govern the field,
inasmuch as the same is clearly saved as being a Regulation duly
authorized having its source in Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution of
India. There is no law for the time being relating to the Regulation of
grant of autonomous Colleges running contrary to the same either
framed under Entry 66 of List I or Entry 25 of List II. In the absence
of any such legislation to the contrary, we are of the clear opinion that
the 2018 Regulations clearly hold the field exclusively in the matters
of grant of autonomous status to W.P.No.7377 of 2021 affiliated
colleges. The resolution of the Syndicate dated 27.05.2014 cannot in
any way be said to have an overriding effect or even supplementary
effect to the 2018 Regulations, inasmuch as the method of grant of an
autonomous status is clearly defined under the 2018 Regulations and
the eligibility to obtain such status is also governed by the same.
...
18. We need to mention another fact that at this stage the letter
dated 29.05.2019 was in the knowledge of the University Grants
Commission and it is thereafter that the University Grants
Commission constituted an Expert Committee consisting of one of the
nominees of the University to undertake a fresh exercise of inspection.
It is thereafter that the University Grants Commission has taken a
decision. Accordingly, without exercise having been undertaken
afresh by the University Grants Commission, we find no infirmity,
much less a legal infirmity, in the procedure adopted by the University
Grants Commission to award the autonomous status of the first
respondent Institute.
19. Learned Additional Advocate General urged that while
taking a decision to grant the autonomous status, the University
Grants Commission has nowhere mentioned about the fact of the
objection taken by the University as noted in the letter dated
29.05.2019. In our considered opinion, once we have come to the
conclusion that any decision taken by the Syndicate in the year 2014
no longer binds the University Grants Commission, then the said
arguments deserves dismissal”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
12. Since the law having been declared by the authoritative
pronouncement of this Court, which has been confirmed by the orders passed
by the Honourable Supreme Court as stated supra, it is for the UGC to
consider the application to be submitted by institution like the petitioner with
regard to the conferment of autonomous status unmindful of the rejection
made in this regard by the affiliating University. In other words, it is not
mandated that, unless the affiliating University forwards the application with
recommendation, the application submitted by the institution cannot be
considered by the UGC independently for the purpose of conferment of
autonomous status. The said view of the Division Bench of this Court was
also followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7377 of 2021
dated 07.05.2021.
13. Insofar as the legal position as to the powers and functions of the
first respondent/UGC is concerned, absolutely there can be no quarrel, as the
law has been well settled in number of pronouncements by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as various High Courts, including this Court. In this
context, the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.No.51 of 2020,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
relied on by the learned Senior Counsel has thrown a light, where the legal
position has been explicitly stated as to the status of the UGC for considering
the application submitted by the institution concerned, independently for the
purpose of declaring it as an autonomous institution. In this context, Para 14
of the Division Bench judgment, where the legal position has been declared,
has already been extracted above and the said judgment since has been
confirmed by the orders of the Supreme Court, the judgment has become
final.
14. While that being the position, there can be no impediment for the
UGC to independently consider the application submitted by the petitioner as
per the UGC Regulations 2018. In this regard, in order to reconcile the
Regulation 7(3) of the Regulation, which has been quoted herein above, the
application initially has to be routed through the affiliating University, then
the University can either forward the same to the UGC with its
recommendation or the University can reject the same with reasons. Even if
it is rejected, according to Regulation 7(3), it has to be forwarded only to
UGC for further action at the end of UGC. That is what intended by the
Regulation making authority, who made the Regulations, 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
15. In the case on hand, a perusal of the impugned order of the first
respondent/UGC dated 10.03.2021 would prima facie disclose that UGC,
relying on the earlier communications/recommendations of the University
dated 19.01.2021 and 19.02.2021, has passed a non-speaking order simply
approving the proposal of the second respondent/University and
communicated to the second respondent that University may revoke the
autonomous status of the petitioner institution from the academic year 2021-
2022. Therefore, it is clear from the impugned order that the first respondent
/UGC has not taken the decision independently and on its own merit.
Therefore, the aforesaid order passed by the first respondent/UGC is not in
consonance with the procedure as contemplated under UGC Regulations,
2018 and the said fact is also not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent/UGC and he fairy agreed that the first respondent would
reconsider the matter afresh, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the
impugned order is not in consonance with the UGC Regulations, 2018.
16. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, the power to grant or refuse autonomous status to a College is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
vested with UGC under the Statute and Regulations and hence, UGC cannot
delegate its power to Anna University. It is also very clear from the above
cited decision of the Division Bench of this Court that UGC is the ultimate
authority to take final decision and to independently pass orders. The
Director of Anna University also submitted that the UGC is the ultimate
authority to take decision and pass orders with regard to conferment and
grant of extension of autonomous status.
17. The respondent/University has also stated in the counter affidavit
that UGC is the final authority to grant or reject the application to confer or
extend the autonomous status to the petitioner College. The arguments
advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the University was already
decided in the Division Bench decision of this Court and therefore, when the
law is well settled, this Court has come to the conclusion that the first
respondent/UGC is the final authority to take a decision on the application
for extension of autonomous status to the petitioner college.
18. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
cited supra, the impugned order of the first respondent/UGC dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
10.03.2021 is not in consonance with the UGC Regulations, 2018 and this
Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned order passed by the first
respondent/UGC dated 10.03.2021. When the final order passed by the first
respondent/UGC is quashed, the consequential order of the second
respondent/University dated 01.04.2021 becomes unsustainable and
therefore, the said order is also liable to be quashed.
19. In view of the above discussions, this Court is inclined to pass the
following order:
(i) The impugned order of the first respondent/UGC dated 10.03.2021
in Letter No.F.2-76(31)2015/AC dated 10.03.2021 and the consequential
order of the second respondent / University in Letter
No.881/AU/CAC/Autonomous/2021 dated 01.04.2021 are quashed and the
matter is remitted back to the first respondent to consider afresh and pass
orders in the light of UGC Regulations, 2018.
(ii) It is open to the petitioner institution to file their objections /
explanation before the first respondent/UGC within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
(iii) It is also made clear that first respondent/UGC shall consider the
petitioner's application dated 30.01.2021 and take a decision independently
on its own merits and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
20. With the above directions, W.P.Nos.9631 and 9636 of 2021
stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
W.P.No.5545 of 2021
21. As regards, W.P.No.5545 of 2021 is concerned, the petitioner has
challenged the impugned communication/proposal of the second
respondent/University dated 19.02.2021. The grounds raised in the writ
petition to interfere with the impugned proposal / rejection order of the
University was duly considered by a learned Judge in W.P.No.7377 of 2021
dated 07.05.2021 and it is relevant to extract the following paras of the said
decision:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
“34. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that,
unmindful of the impugned order dated 08.03.2021 issued by
the first respondent University, certainly the second respondent
UGC can independently decide the application dated
12.03.2021 submitted by the petitioner on its own merits and in
accordance with law and in that case, it is for the UGC to take
the inputs supplied by the University by way of a speaking
order dated 08.03.2021, which includes the two reasons cited
therein for the purpose of rejecting the application of the
petitioner.
35. In that view of the matter, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that, even without quashing the order dated
08.03.2021 of the first respondent University, it may be
directed that, it can only be treated as an input supplied by the
affiliating University to the UGC within the meaning of the
second limb of Clause 7(3) of the 2018 Regulations and
accordingly, the application submitted by the petitioner dated
12.03.2021 can very well be considered by the UGC on its own
merits.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is
inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following
orders.
(a) That there shall be a direction to the second
respondent UGC to consider the application submitted by the
petitioner dated 12.03.2021 seeking autonomous status for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
said institution. While considering the said application
independently on its own merits, the input supplied by the first
respondent through the speaking order dated 08.03.2021,
which is impugned herein, also can be taken into account.
(b) That apart, the law declared by this Court in the
Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.51 of 2020 in the matter of
"The Anna University -Vs- Mahendra Institute of Technology
and another" as confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court
in S.L.P(Civil) Nos.8324 and 8325 of 2020 shall be borne in
mind and accordingly the UGC can decide the application of
the petitioner dated 12.03.2021 and pass final orders thereon
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.”
The observations made in the above cited writ petition is squarely applicable
to the present case on hand.
22. The petitioner has raised several grounds in the writ petition and in
view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9631 and 9636 of 2021
quashing the impugned order of the first respondent/UGC dated 10.03.2021
and the consequential order of the second respondent/University dated
01.04.2021, the issues raised by the petitioner are left open and the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
is at liberty to submit their explanation before the UGC. It is made clear that
this Court has not gone into the merits of the impugned communication dated
19.02.2021 and UGC shall consider and pass orders in the light of UGC
Regulations, 2018 and also the decision of this Court in W.P.No.7377 of 2021
dated 07.05.2021.
23. In view of the directions passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.9361 and
9636 of 2021, W.P.Nos.5545 of 2021 stands disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
To
1.The Secretary,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110 02.
2.The Registrar,
Anna University, Chennai-600 025.
3.Centre for Academic Courses,
Represented by its Director,
Anna University, Chennai-600 025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P..Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
Jvm
Order in
W.P.Nos.9631, 9636 and 5545 of 2021
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
