IMPORTANT POINT
Autonomous colleges have the right to establish independent evaluation methods, and universities cannot impose fines for deviations from their grading systems if the colleges' methods have been approved.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

These connected writ petitions are filed by the Principals of Aided Colleges affiliated with the 1st respondent University which have been granted Academic Autonomy by the University Grants Commission (UGC) as well as the University, challenging the insistence by the 1st respondent University to remit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs each as a condition for issue of the degree certificates as against various courses conducted by the Colleges upon conferment of autonomy as above.

2. The short facts as culled out from W.P.(C) No.29493 of 2017 are as under:

The petitioner is stated to be the Principal of S.H. College, Thevara, which was started in 1944. The College was granted autonomous status by UGC pursuant to Ext.P1 communication addressed to the Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi University dated 19.06.2014. In tune with Ext.P1, the University also issued Ext.P2 order dated 23.07.2014, permitting the petitioner as well as three other Colleges to start the admission process in tune with the autonomy granted. The petitioner, on the basis of the autonomy so obtained, started various courses from the academic year 2014-2015 onwards, and the academic council of the College had also framed a “Manual of Examinations” and forwarded the same to the 1st respondent University on 08.10.2014 for its “remarks”. It is stated that though under the statute, the University was to offer their remarks on the Manual so forwarded within 60 days’ time, the University kept silent and ultimately by Ext.P6 dated 10.05.2017, approved the Manual of Examinations forwarded as above. In the meantime, the petitioner had admitted students and had also conducted the courses in tune with the Manual of Examinations framed as above and upon declaration of the results of the 1st batch of the post-graduate students, the same was forwarded to the respondent University through Ext.P7 letter dated 29.08.2016, requesting the University to issue degree certificates. However, the 1st respondent University sought for certain clarifications, and they were also forwarded by the petitioner. But, the 1st respondent University, by Ext.P15 order dated 25.07.2017, concluded that the petitioner had announced results by following the “marks system” as against the “direct grading system,” which was being followed by the University, and, therefore, there is violation of certain provisions of the statute. Hence, it was decided to insist on a fresh mark list by following the “direct grading system”. Upon receipt of Ext.P15 order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P16 letter dated 27.07.2017, pointing out that the grading system that was being followed by the University has no relevance subsequent to the approval of the Examination Manual as stated earlier. The University, thereafter, issued a circular at Ext.P17 dated 10.08.2017, laying down certain pre-conditions for the purpose of issuance of the degree certificates. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted Ext.P18, forwarding the details of the students admitted during 2014-16 and 2015-2017, again requesting the University to issue the degree certificates. Insofar as the degree certificates were not being issued even thereafter, the petitioner was before this Court, and by Ext.P20 judgment dated 09.08.2017, this Court directed the University to issue necessary orders. The respondent University, in turn, issued Ext.P21, alleging that there were irregularities in the matter of grading and ultimately deciding to issue the degree certificates for the undergraduate/postgraduate courses on condition the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards fine. It is challenging the afore order at Ext.P21, insisting on payment of a fine as a pre-condition for the issue of the degree certificates that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petitions.

3. While admitting these writ petitions, this Court recorded the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that they are ready and willing to remit Rs.10 lakhs “under prote