The UGC Regulations, 2000 have statutory force and are binding on universities and colleges, emphasizing the consequences of non-compliance with UGC recommendations.

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to (i) The Communication No.A-II/ASO-1/PRES.QLN/2004/1924 dated 23-11-2004 on the 2nd respondent University and (ii) Communication dated 03.07.2006 by the Letter No.MSU/CD/OA/ Gen/2002 issued by the 3rd respondent herein Viz., the Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, pursuant to (iii) UGC Letter No.F.No.3-1 (2000) (PS) dated 05.12.2005 and (iv) UGC Leter No.F.3-1/2000 (PS) dated 12.10.2004 (v) D.O. No.F3-1/2000 (PS) dated 04.04.2000, enclosing D.O. No.F3-1/2000 (PS) dated March 2000, more particularly 3.1.0 and 3.5.0 of the above said notification and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to approve the appointment of Teachers, Principals, Professors and Readers as hitherto done before.)

The Association of Management of Private Colleges has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 23.11.2004 issued by the University of Madras. By this communication, the colleges were informed that the procedure laid down in the U.G.C. Regulation, 2000 for constitution of a Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Principal and other teaching posts in affiliated colleges for this University should be "strictly followed while their selection". Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, the third respondent herein, had, in line with the above communcation, informed all the Secretaries and Principals of the affiliated colleges that the Selection Committee should be constituted as per the U.G.C. Regulations. According to the petitioner, this insistence is irrational, arbitrary and against the powers of the U.G.C.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all these years, appointments have been made by the College Committee as per the qualifications prescribed by the University and there was no problem and there is no explanation as to how the U.G.C. can now stipulate, the manner in which the Selection Committee should be constituted. The procedure for instituting the Selection Committee is ultravires to the statutes and Regulations of the University and the U.G.C. Act. Learned Senior Counsel, in particular, pointed out that the words used in the Regulations are "Selection Committees are recommended by the U.G.C". The learned Senior Counsel relied on the Supreme Court Judgment reported in (1974) 4 SCC 788, in the case of Naraindas Indurkhya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, wherein the question was regarding the prescription of text books and whether the text books recommended by the Board of Secondary Education can be said to be 'in force' immediately before the appointed day of The Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965). The Supreme Court drew the fine distinction between the words "recommendation" and "prescription", and held a recommendation has only a persuasive effect. Learned Senior Counsel, also submitted that G.O.Ms.No.111 Higher Education dated 24.03.1999 which provides for constitution of Selection Committee, was challenged in W.P. No.17042 of 1999 and was quashed on the ground that it interferes with the power of the College Committee constituted under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act. These U.G.C. Regulations have come into force in the year 2000. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that while it was open to the U.G.C. to prescribe the necessary qualifications for the teachers, that power cannot be extended to prescribing or recommending, and enforcing on the colleges the constitution of Selection Committee. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the Supreme Court Judgment reported in (2004) 6 SCC 224 in the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society and Others Vs. State of W.B. and Others, wherein it was held that the control referred to in Paragraphs 71, 72 and 73 of the Supreme Court Judgment reported in (2002) 8