High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
I. Elangovan - Appellant
Versus
The Thiruvalluvar University rep. by its Registrar & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.41049 Of 2006 And W.P.M.P. No.1 Of 2006
Decided On : 05 December 2006
(Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent from granting retrospective affiliation w.e.f. 2005-2006 in respect of B.Ed., course for the respondent colleges.)
Education is the manifestation of perfection already in man said Swami Vivekananda. But if he were alive today, he would have said ‘Education is the manifestation of perversion already in man. This is the stage to which the filed of education has been brought into. This is why the Supreme Court observed in State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others ((1992) 4 SCC 435)) as follows:-
“Obviously, the filed of education is found to be fertile, perennial and profitable business venture with least capital outlay”.
2. The case on hand has been filed by an Academician, who is a member of the Academic Council of Thiruvalluvar University, the first respondent herein. The respondents 3 to 10 are Private Self-financing Colleges imparting teacher education and training affiliated to the first respondent-University. All the respondents 3 to 10 were granted affiliation only for the academic year 2006-2007, though they had obtained recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education for the academic year 2005-2006 and applied for affiliation for the academic year 2005-2006.
3. On the basis of the recognition granted by the National Council for Teacher Education for the academic year 2005-2006 and also on the ground that they sought for affiliation only for the academic year 2005-2006, the respondents 3 to 10 moved the first respondent-University to alter the affiliation granted for 2006-2007 to 2005-2006.
4. The request of the respondents 3 to 10 was circulated under Agenda Item No.11 to the members of the Syndicate of the University, for consideration, in its meeting proposed to be held on 27.10.2006. Contending that such a move amounted to retrospective affiliation, in violation of the statutes of the University, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent-University to forbear from granting retrospective affiliation to respondents 3 to 10 with effect from the academic year 2005-2006.
5. On 27.10.2006, notice was ordered in the writ petition and a direction was issued by this Court that any action taken on 27.10.2006 in the meeting of the Syndicate will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Consequently, the meeting of the Syndicate was held as scheduled on 27.10.2006 and in respect of the disputed Agenda Item No.11, the Syndicate passed a resolution, resolving not to grant affiliation for 2005-2006 to the respondents 3 to 10, but to permit the students to appear for B.Ed., degree examination in November/December 2006. In other words, the request of the respondents 3 to 10 to grant affiliation from the academic year 2005-2006 has been turned down by the first respondent-University and the prayer in the writ petition, on a cursory glance, appears to have been conceded by the University.
6. However it is not so. Even while rejecting the request of respondents 3 to 10 to grant affiliation with effect from 2005-2006, the Syndicate of the University permitted the students to appear for B.Ed., examination subject to three conditions viz.,:-
(a) that a panel consisting of Registrar and a subject expert nominated by the Vice Chancellor would verify the details of enrollment of students admitted in the year 2005-2006 for satisfying themselves that theory and practical classes and the teaching experience have been conducted as per procedure;
(b) that the permission to write the exam would be subject to the result of the writ petition; and
(c) that the managements of the respondents 3 to 10 shall remit a penal fee of Rs.5,000/- per candidate.
7. In the scenario that changed as aforesaid, the writ petition came up for hearing. I heard Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, M
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.