Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4256
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya Polytechnic College, Rep. by its Correspondent
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others
W.P.No.6370 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009
Decided on: 15-10-2009
For the Petitioner:G. Masilamani, SC for Ramesh Venkatachalapathy, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, P. Wilson, AAG, Asst. By Mrs. E. Ranganayaki,G.A.(Education), R4, N. Muralikumaran, Advocate.
The judgment establishes the principle that academic autonomy does not exempt educational institutions from government oversight, and that compliance with State regulations is necessary to maintain education standards and prevent discrimination.
Headnote:
Autonomy - Technical Education - AICTE Act, 1987 - G.O.Ms.841, Education Department, dated 07.05.1980 - AICTE guidelines - State Government's power to prescribe higher qualifications - Internal evaluation system and grading of classes - Awarding of marks for subjects unrelated to technical education - Review of autonomous status - Decline in standard of technical education - Discrimination in grading - Compliance with State Board norms
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Polytechnic College, enjoyed academic autonomy granted by the 2nd respondent. Disputes arose when the State Board directed the college to make corrective measures to its internal evaluation system, grading of classes, and curriculum. The petitioner challenged the directives in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner, despite its autonomy, is not exempt from government oversight. The State Government has the power to prescribe reasonable restrictions on autonomy to achieve higher education standards. The court found that the State Board's directives were not premature and were necessary to safeguard the students' interests.
Issues: The issues involved the extent of autonomy granted to the petitioner, the State Government's power to prescribe higher qualifications, and the compliance with AICTE guidelines and State Board norms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State Government has the power to prescribe reasonable restrictions on the autonomy of educational institutions. It also held that the petitioner's internal evaluation system and grading of classes should comply with State Board norms to avoid decline in the standard of technical education and discrimination among students.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was given two weeks to make corrective measures as indicated. Upon compliance, the 2nd respondent was directed to permit the petitioner to convene the awards committee meeting and publish the results.
The petitioner is a Polytechnic College. It was founded by Sri Ramakrishna Mission, which is a registered society several decades ago. It is offering Diploma courses in Technical Education. It is affiliated to the 2nd respondent. Under G.O.Ms.841, Education Department, dated 07.05.1980 the 2nd respondent granted academic autonomous status to the petitioner Polytechnic College. Fulfilling all the conditions stipulated therein, the petitioner polytechnic college was all along functioning enjoying the full status of autonomy. While so, All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (in short , the AICTE Act") came into being. As per the said Act, the AICTE has issued guidelines on the scheme of autonomous polytechnic colleges and other Diploma level institutions throughout the country. The 2nd respondent by letter D.Dis.No.21930/H5/96, dated 10.05.1996 communicated the said guidelines to the petitioner indicating thereby, that the petitioner Polytechnic should follow the said guidelines scrupulously.
2. As per the guidelines, an autonomous polytechnic college will have freedom in respect of the following:
(i) to determine and prescribe its own courses of study and syllabi in close collaboration with the user system;
(ii) to prescribe rule of admission as per AICTE regulations, subject to the reservation policy of the State Government;
(iii) to evolve methods of evaluation and to conduct examination; and
(iv) the autonomy shall be a means to achieve higher standards and greater creativity in the future. An autonomous institution will be fully accountable for the content and quality of education that it imparts. It will be responsible for evaluation of students for awards of Diploma/Certificate which will be accepted by the parent Board.
3. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is the parent Board. After the coming into force of the said guidelines, indisputably, there was no need to get fresh affiliation or autonomous status. The affiliation granted earlier to the petitioner polytechnic college and the autonomous status granted hold good.
4. While the petitioner polytechnic college was enjoying the autonomous status, a letter was sent by the 3rd respondent on 17.03.2009 vide Ref. No.112386/M1/2008 directing the petitioner polytechnic college to take corrective measures to the effect that
(1) Proposal for the Internal Evaluation System to be in consonance with the State Boards norms;
(2) Grading of classes to be in conformity with the State Boards norms; and
(3) To frame the curriculum within the time limit and get them approved by the State Board;
5. It was further informed that in the event of the petitioner failing to take corrective measures, the State Board of Technical Education may have to review the autonomous status for the institution which may lead to taking action to abridge or withdraw the autonomous status of the petitioner polytechnic college. In response to the said letter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 01.04.2009 requesting the respondents to convene the award committee meeting on 11.04.2009 and to depute DOTE nominees for the same. Thereafter, under letter No.112386/M1/2008, dated 08.04.2009, the 3rd respondent again informed the petitioner that he would be allowed to convene the award committee meeting only after corrective measures as advised in the letter dated 17.03.2009 have been taken. As a result, though the students have taken the examination and evaluation has been done by the college, since, award committee meeting was not held, the college could not recommend to the second respondent for awarding of certificates. Challenging these two letters the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.
6. The crux of the contentions of the petitioner is as follows:-
(i) The impugned letters tend to interfere with the internal administration of the petitioner polytechnic college which is impermissible in law.
(ii) Refusal to convene the award committee to recommend for awarding of Diploma cert
