Madras High Court
Rathinam Techinical Campus vs Anna University on 28 June, 2022
W.P.No.16091 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.16091 of 2022 &
W.M.P.No.15444 of 2022
Rathinam Techinical Campus,
represented by its Chairman,
Pollachi Main Road,
Eachanari,
Coimbatore – 641 021 ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Anna University,
Represented by its Registrar,
Chennai – 600 025.
2.Centre for Academic Courses
represented by its Director,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025.
3.University Grants Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1 st
respondent ending with its letter No.446/AU/CAC/Autonomous/2022 dated
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16091 of 2022
13.06.2022 and quash the same and consequently, direct the University
Grants Commission, the third respondent to consider the application of the
petitioner dated 22.01.2022 for conferment of autonomous status in the light
of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.51 of 2020
and confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C).Nos.8324-8325 of
2020.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Muthumani Doraisami
For Respondents
1 & 2 : Mrs.V.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Standing Counsel
For Respondent 3 : Mr.Rabu Manohar
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the letter
No.446/AU/CAC/Autonomous/2022 dated 13.06.2022 rejecting the
petitioner's application dated 22.01.2022 seeking for grant of fresh
autonomous status for the academic year 2022-23 and also for a direction to
the third respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated
22.01.2022 in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in W.A.No.51 of 2020 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP
(C).Nos.8324-8325 of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16091 of 2022
2. According to the petitioner, they had applied for autonomous status
with the third respondent on 22.02.2022. According to the petitioner, based
on the invalid guidelines, the first respondent has rejected their application
dated 22.02.2022.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel
appearing for the first and second respondents and the learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the guidelines
framed by the first respondent which is the basis of its rejection has been
declared to be invalid by orders of this Court dated 06.09.2021 in
W.P.No.14351 & 14353 of 2021. He relied upon paragraph 20 of the said
judgment which reads as follows:
“20. In view of the above discussion, the award of
extension of autonomous status guidelines formulated by the
syndicate in the meeting held on 09.11.2018 does not have
the status of a statute and consequently does not have the
force of law. The first issue is answered accordingly.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16091 of 2022
5. Therefore, according to him, the third respondent has to
independently make its assessment and thereafter decide as to whether the
petitioner institution is eligible for autonomous status or not and the said
assessment should not be based on invalid guidelines of the University as
the said guidelines has been declared as invalid by the orders of this Court
referred to supra.
6. Learned standing counsel for the third respondent on instruction
would submit that the petitioner has not satisfied that the pass percentage of
students which has to be 70% but instead the petitioner institution's pass
percentage is only 46.95% in the tabular column of the impugned order and
the petitioner has also not satisfied the 'h' index of college which has to be
10 whereas the petitioner Institution is only 9.
7. Without going into the merits of the respective contentions with
regard to the eligibility of the petitioner institution to be declared as an
autonomous institution, this Court is of the considered view that no
prejudice would be caused to the third respondent, if the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16091 of 2022
application seeking to declare them as an autonomous college is considered
afresh and independently on merits and in accordance with law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court permits the petitioner to
submit the documents/orders before the third respondent in support of their
request for autonomous and this Court also directs the third respondent to
consider afresh and independently the petitioner's application dated
22.02.2022 seeking for declaration of the petitioner as an autonomous
institution and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law after
affording a fair hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Since the third respondent is the competent authority to grant
autonomous status to the petitioner and in view of the fact that the direction
has been issued to them to make an independent assessment of the petitioner
institution, the question of quashing of the impugned order issued by the
first respondent will not arise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16091 of 2022
10. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.06.2022
nl
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking orders
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16091 of 2022
To
1.Anna University,
Represented by its Registrar,
Chennai – 600 025.
2.Centre for Academic Courses
represented by its Director,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025.
3.University Grants Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16091 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl
W.P.No.16091 of 2022
28.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
