Annapoorana Engineering College vs 2 University Grants Commission
2021 Latest Caselaw 11303 Mad

                                                                                               W.P.No.7377 of 2021

                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                           DATED : 07.05.2021
                                                                CORAM
                                           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
                                                      W.P.No.7377 of 2021 and
                                                    W.M.P.Nos.7884 & 7885 of 2021

            Annapoorana Engineering College
            rep by its Principal Sankari Main Road
            Periyaseeragapadi Salem District- 636 308.                                ....   Petitioner
                                              Vs

            1     Anna University
                 rep by its registrar Chennai- 600 025.

            2     University Grants Commission
                 rep by its Secretary Bahadur Shah Zafar
                 Marg New Delhi- 110 002.                                             ....   Respondents

            Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a
            Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent ending with its
            Letter No.450/ AU/ CAC/ Autonomous / 2021 dated 08.03.2021 and quash the same and
            consequently direct the University Grants Commission                 the 2nd Respondent herein     to
            consider the application of the Petitioner dated 11.02.221 for conferment of autonomous
            status in the light of the judgement of the Division of this Honourable court in W.A. No.51 of
            2020 and confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos.8324- 8325 of 2020.


                                   For Petitioner      :      Mr.Kandhan Doraisami

                                   For Respondents     :      Mr.Vijayakumar, Standing Counsel – for R1
                                                              Mr.Rabu Manohar, Standing Counsel – for R2




            1 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                              W.P.No.7377 of 2021

                                                             ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records of the 1st respondent ending with its Letter No.450/ AU/ CAC/ Autonomous / 2021

dated 08.03.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the University Grants

Commission the 2nd Respondent herein to consider the application of the Petitioner dated

11.02.2021 for conferment of autonomous status in the light of the judgement of the Division

of this court in W.A. No.51 of 2020 and confirmed by the Honourable Apex Court in S.L.P. (C)

Nos.8324- 8325 of 2020.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is an approved and affiliated

Engineering College imparting education in the field of engineering since 2010. It has been

approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE'),

New Delhi and affiliated to the Anna University.

3. Since the institution has served for more than ten years and according to the

institution, it has fulfilled the norms prescribed in this regard by the University Grants

Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC') under the UGC Act as well as the regulations

made therein, it thought of making an application to the UGC to declare the autonomous

status to the petitioner institution. Since the said status of autonomous institution is to be

declared only by the UGC, such application has already been made on 11.02.2021.

2 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

4. In this regard, it is to be noted that, as per the UGC (Conferment of Autonomous

Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges)

Regulations, 2018 (in short '2018 Regulations'), various procedures have been contemplated

as to how an application has to be submitted by the institution seeking autonomous status

and to be processed by the UGC.

5. In this context, Clause 7(3) of the Regulations is pertinent, which reads thus,

“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" .”

6. As per Regulation 7(3) of the 2018 Regulations, the petitioner institution submitted

its application to the respondent Anna University to be forwarded to the respondent UGC.

The said application having been considered by the respondent Anna University, was rejected

by a speaking order dated 08.03.2021, wherein the said application of the petitioner was

rejected on the ground that, the student enrollment for the last three years was 30% against

the requirement of 60% and the examination results for the last three years was 39.5% as

against the requirement of 70%. On these two reasons, the application which was submitted

by the petitioner to the respondent Anna University to be forwarded to the UGC has been

rejected through the order dated 08.03.2021.

3 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

7. Unmindful of the said rejection order made by the first respondent Anna University,

the petitioner has further made an independent application on 12.03.2021 to the respondent

UGC to independently consider the request of the petitioner for grant of autonomous status

to the petitioner institution in the light of the law having been declared by this Court in a

related case in W.A.No.51 of 2020, which judgment of this Court has already been confirmed

by a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 24.07.2020 made in SLP (Civil)

Nos.8324 and 8325 of 2020. Therefore, at this juncture the institution has filed the present

writ petition to challenge the order of rejection made by the respondent University dated

08.03.2021 and consequently direct the second respondent UGC to consider the application

dated 12.03.2021 submitted independently in the light of the judgment referred to above

passed by this Court in W.A.No.51 of 2020 etc., That is how this writ petition has come

before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

8. Mr.Kandhan Doraisami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted

that, no doubt as per 2018 Regulations, the application to be submitted by any institution like

the petitioner to the UGC seeking for autonomous status has to be routed through the

affiliating university. Here in the case in hand, Anna University being the affiliating university

therefore the said application was submitted to the petitioner on 15.02.2021 to the first

respondent University and the same has been rejected through the impugned order

08.03.2021 on the alleged reason that, the required number of pass percentage and required

number of enrollment is not met by the institution.

4 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

9. Learned counsel would further submit that, in this context it is the requirement of

the UGC, as per the norms prescribed in this regard as to on what basis an institution has to

be conferred the autonomous status. In this regard since the application has to be routed

through the University, only for that purpose the petitioner has submitted the applicaton to

the first respondent University and an advanced copy already was sent to the UGC. Merely

because the University has rejected it for the aforesaid reason, that will not ipso facto

preclude the petitioner's application to be considered by the UGC for conferment of

autonomous status.

10. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon

the following observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred

case (W.A.No.51 of 2020), which reads thus,

"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

5 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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."

11. By relying upon this decision, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would contend that, 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.

12. 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.

13. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by relying upon the

said judgment as well as explaining the legal position, would seek the indulgence of this

Court to pass suitable orders to give direction to the respondent UGC to consider the

application of the petitioner independently on its own merits and to decide the same within a

time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

6 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

14. I have heard Mr.Vijayakumar, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent

University who would submit that, the UGC itself has passed the 2018 Regulations under its

Regulation making power under the UGC Act, wherein Regulation 7(3) as quoted herein

above, would state that, the college shall submit 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 the 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.

15. By relying upon this Regulation, Mr.Vijayakumar, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the University would contend that, as per the said Regulation, the application

of the petitioner having been considered, was rejected by the impugned order dated

08.03.2021 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. Therefore, with that, the

application submitted by the institution has come to a close and that cannot be further

considered by the UGC, he contended.

16. With regard to the Division Bench judgment, which was heavily relied upon by the

learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the learned Standig Counsel appearing for

the University would contend that, the said judgment cannot be taken as a judgment in rem,

instead, the said judgment can be treated as a judgment in personam, as what has been

7 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

stated in the judgment would apply only to the parties to the said case and not to any other

institution like the petitioner.

17. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University would further submit that,

if at all the UGC wants to consider the further application made directly by the petitioner as

has been sought for in this writ petition, the UGC cannot independently decide the same on

its own merits of the application, but before considering the same, the affiliating University

ie., the first respondent shall be consulted by the second respondent UGC, which is

mandatory. Without having such consultation, the UGC cannot consider the application of

the petitioner for conferment of autonomous status.

18. By making all the above submissions, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for

the University wants to sustain the order passed by the respondent University and also seeks

the indulgence of this Court to reject the writ petition, as according to him, it does not have

any deserving reason to be considered.

19. On the other hand, Mr.Rabu Manohar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

second respondent ie., UGC, on instructions, would submit that, the University Grants

Commission is the creature of the Central Legislation called University Grants Commision

Act., 1956. The provisions of the said Act confers the power to the UGC to do various acts

including recognizing or declaring Deemed Universities and also to declare the autonomous

status of various institutions.

8 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

20. In order to process such kind of applications being made by various Institutions

from time to time, seeking conferment of autonomous status, the UGC has framed a

Regulation called 2018 Regulations and as per the Regulations, the procedure has been

contemplated as to how the application has to filed by the institution to the UGC and in this

regard, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the University, the

application has to be routed through the affiliating University as per Regulation 7(3).

21. Once the application filed by the institution is considered and rejected, the

rejection order should be forwarded to the UGC for its consideration. That is also mandated

in Regulation 7(3).

22. Thereafter, if the institution still insists the UGC to consider the application

independently as per the law having been declared by this Court in a recent judgment, since

the UGC is the centralized authority to control all these institutions under the provisions of

the UGC Act and the Regulations made therein from time to time, it would independently

consider the application of the institution by taking into account the inputs supplied by the

affiliating University by way of a speaking order / rejection order made in this regard.

23. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the UGC would contend

that, even though a speaking order / rejection order has been made by the University dated

08.03.2021, and the same having been forwarded to the UGC, certainly that input also would

9 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

be taken into account as per the law having been declared by this Court in the said judgment

cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as has been confirmed by the Honourable

Supreme Court, consequently, the application submitted by the petitioner dated 12.03.2021

to the UGC would be considered independently, of course on its own merits and while

considering the same, the inputs supplied by the affiliating University ie., the first respondent

through the impugned order dated 08.03.2021 also would be taken into account.

24. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on

either side and have perused the materials placed on record.

25. Insofar as the legal position as to the powers and functions of the second

respondent UGC is concerned, absolutely there can be no quarrel, as the law has been well

settled by number of pronouncements by the Honourable Supreme Court as well various

High Courts, including this Court.

26. In this context, the recent judgement of the Division Bench of this Court as has

been quoted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, made in W.A.No.51 of 2020

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

judgment, where, the legal position has been declared by the Division Bench, has already

been quoted herein above and the said judgment since has been confirmed by the orders of

10 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

the Supreme Court, the judgment has become final. Therefore, the legal position as laid

down in the said judgment, especially in Para 14 quoted herein above, will govern the field.

27. When that being the position, there can be no impediment for the UGC to

independently consider the application submitted by the institution like the petitioner for the

purpose of conferment of autonomous status.

28. In this regard, in order to reconcile the Regulation 7(3) of the Regulation, which

has been quoted herein above, where, 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.

29. Even if it is rejected, according to the Regulation 7(3), it has to be forwarded only

to the UGC for further action at the end of the UGC. That is what intended by the Regulation

making authority, who made the Regulations 2018.

30. In other words, if any pedantic view is taken, as projected by the learned Standing

Counsel for the University, that once the application is rejected by the affiliating University, it

cannot be decided subsequently either independently or otherwise by the UGC, then the

power conferred on the UGC under the UGC Act and the Regulations made thereunder would

become otiose and that kind of interpretation cannot be expected to be given by any Court of

Law.

11 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

31. Further, insofar as the merits of the application is concerned, certainly it has to be

decided by the UGC on its own merits. Unless the institution, who files the application

seeking autonomous status, fulfills the conditions imposed in this regard by the UGC such

institution is not entitled to get such a declaration from the UGC.

32. Here in the case in hand, two reasons have been stated by the Anna University for

rejecting the application of the petitioner. One is that, enrollment of students in the last

three years and another is pass percentage in the last three years.

33. These two reasons whether would stand in the way of the UGC to independently

consider the application based on the other inputs supplied by the institution, is the question

to be decided only by the UGC and not by the affiliating university ie., the first respondent.

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.

12 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

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 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

13 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

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.

37. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

07.05.2021 KST Index : Yes Internet : Yes

To

1 The Registrar Anna University, Chennai- 600 025.

2 The Secretary University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi- 110 002.

14 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.7377 of 2021

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

KST

W.P.No.7377 of 2021

07.05.2021

15 / 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/