Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. M. SIDICKK
Manonmanian Sundaranar University and Others - Appellant
Versus
Kumaragurubara Swamigal Arts College and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 329 of 1994 and C. W. P. No. 3088 of 1994
Decided On : 11 July 1997
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLES 26, 30 - MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - ADMISSIONS - MERIT-BASED ADMISSIONS - RELIGIOUS MINORITY INSTITUTIONS - RIGHT TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION - DECREE OF CIVIL COURT - NULLITY - RES JUDICATA - INTERVIEW SYSTEM - ARBITRARY MARKS - ACADEMIC QUESTION.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent College, by virtue of Section 1 of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act stands affiliated to the appellant-University. The University has been concerned with the maintenance of the academic standards. According to the University, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case College receiving 100% grant from the Government, will have to make admissions on the basis of merit subject to the rule of reservation alone. It is their case that several complaints were received by the University from various sections of public and students and in respect of several colleges Inspection Commissions were therefore, sent to enquire into the complaints. The lst respondent College was also one of the colleges in respect of which complaints were received and the Inspection Commission consisting of academicians was set up to go into the complaints. The Inspection Commission gave the first respondent College adequate notice and also afforded the opportunity of being heared. The Inspection Commission found that for 5O% of the seats to M.Sc. Physics and Chemistry courses the admissions were not on the basis of the merit. An interview was held for 25 marks to test the knowledge of Saiva Siddantha and admissions were given on the basis of marks in the examination as well as interview. The report of the Commission was considered by the Syndicate on 25-10-1993 and it was resolved that the admissions made on the basis of allotment of 25 marks for the knowledge of Saiva Siddantha was not acceptable to the University as it was against the norms of admissions. The 1st respondent college was advised accordingly. Against this, the 1st respondent filed W.P. No. 19833/93.
Finding of the Court:
The decree passed by the Civil Court viz., Sub-Court, Kumbakonam in O.S. No. 18/85 in favour of the 1st respondent college had become final and in fact, in the said matter, it appears that Teacher's association in Madurai Kamraj University wanted to implead itself as a party and it was rejected. It was also rejected by this Court in revision. In so far as the decree of the civil Court declaring Sri Kasi Mutt as a religious denomination minority stands, the 1st respondent college has got the rights of admission for 50% of its own choice.
Issues: 1. Whether the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam in O.S. No. 18/85 declaring the first respondent institution is a nullity? 2. Whether Saiva Siddantha is a separate religious denomination by itself? 3. Whether judgments cited and reported in 1995 AIR(SC) 2089, 1995 (5) JT 205, 1995 (4) Scale 113, 1995 (4) SCC 646 and 1997 (4) JT 124 have retrospective effect? 4. Whether judgment rendered inter partes that is between the 1st respondent herein and the Education Department of the State of Tamil Nadu in O.S.18/95 is binding on both sides?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its validity could be set up when ever and where under it is sought to be enforced or relied upon at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings, and that the defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. 2. The question of jurisdiction was not an issue before the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. This point was also not raised in the counter affidavit filed by the University in the writ petition. 3. The judgment of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam in O.S. 18/85 is a nullity is not challenged in the counter nor argued before the learned single Judge. Therefore, the appellant University cannot now be permitted to raise the question of nullity of a Civil Court decree at this distance of time. 4. The decree granted by the competent sub-Court at Kumbakonam dated 12-8-1985 is valid in law and not a nullity and that the said decree is not a nullity as contended by the appellant-University. 5. The said contention therefore fails and is dismissed. 6. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 are not applicable to the 1st respondent College in so far as the judgment of the 1st appellate court in A.S. 62/86 is concerned, which has become final. 7. The State has not preferred any Second Appeal against the judgment of the District Court, West Thanjavur in A.S. 62 of 1986. 8. The interview system adopted by the college cannot be said to be illegal, yet prescribing 25 marks for interview to assess the knowledge of the candidates in "Saiva Siddantha" seems to be arbitrary and against law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases.
Final Decision: The writ appeal fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 3088 of 1994 is also dismissed.
AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the order of Bakhthavatsalam, J. in W. P. No. 19833/93 dated 19-11-1993 holding that the 1st respodent College is entitled to the rights under Art. 30 of the Constitution of India and that the question whether Saiva Siddhanta is a religion need not be decided. This appeal is filed by the Registrar, Vice-Chancellor and the Controller of Examinations of Manonamaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli. The 1st respondent College, by virtue of Section 1 of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act stands affiliated to the appellant-University. The University has been concerned with the maintenance of the academic standards. According to the University, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case College receiving 100% grant from the Government, will have to make admissions on the basis of merit subject to the rule of reservation alone. It is their case that several complaints were received by the University from various sections of public and students and in respect of several colleges Inspection Commissions were therefore, sent to enquire into the complaints. The lst respondent College was also one of the colleges in respect of which complaints were received and the Inspection Commission consisting of academicians was set up to go into the complaints. The Inspection Commission gave the first respondent College adequate notice and also afforded the opportunity of being heared. The Inspection Commission found that for 5O% of the seats to M.Sc. Physics and Chemistry courses the admissions were not on the basis of the merit. An interview was held for 25 marks to test the knowledge of Saiva Siddantha and admissions were given on the basis of marks in the examination as well as interview. The report of the Commission was considered by the Syndicate on 25-10-1993 and it was resolved that the admissions made on the basis of allotment of 25 marks for the knowledge of Saiva Siddantha was not acceptable to the University as it was against the norms of admissions. The 1st respondent college was advised accordingly. Against this, the 1st respondent filed W.P. No. 19833/93.
2. The 1st respondent College was established by Sri Kasi Mutt which was granted a declaration by the Court of Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam that it is a religious denomination within the meaning of Art. 26 of the Constitution of India. The 1st respondent College contended that the admissions to the extent of 50% could be made on the basis of academic performance as well as the performance in the interview. The University filed a counter-affidavit contending that the declaration obtained was only to the-effect that the Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 would not apply. The provisions of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act will apply to the 1st respondent College. The admissions made allotting 25 marks for the interview was clearly contrary to the rule of merit and there was nothing illegal in setting aside the admission. The University further contended that a declaration under Art. 26 would not enable the 1st respondent College to claim the privileges under Art. 30 of the Constitution of India. Further even assuming without admiting that Saiva Siddantha constituted a minority, the Hon'ble. Supreme Court in St. Stephen College's case had already laid down that the reservation to the extent of 5O% was available only to the students belonging to the minority community by which the College had been established. The University contended that the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation's case had disagreed with the view that the minority institution could adopt its own selection procedure and had referred the issue to a larger bench. The University was concerned with academic standards and wanted to ensure that admissions were made only on the basis of merit.
3. Two students filed applications to implied themselves in the above writ petition. The State was also impleaded along with the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
