SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 4046

2011 (6) CTC 55
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN
Vanniyar Educational Trust, Konerikuppam, rep. by its President G.K. Mani
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government & Others
W.P.No.7279 of 2011
Decided On: 23-09-2011

Advocates Appeared
For the Petitioner:K. Balu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - A. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General, for V.M. Velumani, Special Government Pleader, R2 - V.M.G. Ramakannan, R3 - K. Advocates.

Compliance with UGC guidelines for teaching staff appointment and the need for more law colleges to meet the demand for legal education.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Establishment of Law College - Section 6 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act,1996 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act,1996, and the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations,2000. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with UGC guidelines for the appointment of teaching staff and the requirement of obtaining permission/No Objection Certificate for the establishment of a Law College.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a registered Trust, sought permission to establish a private Law College. After facing rejections and legal battles, the court directed the first respondent to grant permission. The first respondent rejected the request citing unqualified teaching staff and lack of local need for a new law college.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had complied with UGC guidelines for the appointment of teaching staff, and the reasons given by the first respondent for rejecting permission were not valid. The court emphasized the need for more law colleges to cater to the demand for legal education.

Issues: The issues included the compliance with UGC guidelines for teaching staff appointment, the local need for a new law college, and the authority to grant permission for the establishment of law colleges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compliance with UGC guidelines for teaching staff appointment was fulfilled, and the reasons for rejecting permission based on the local need were not valid. The court emphasized the importance of encouraging the establishment of law colleges to meet the demand for legal education.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the first respondent was directed to grant permission for the establishment of the private Law College, emphasizing the need for expedited action due to the upcoming academic year.

Judgment :-

1. This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the letter (MS) No.1524/S/P/LS/2008, dated 30.12.2010, of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to grant permission/NOC as claimed by the petitioner for starting a private Law College in the name and style of Saraswathi Law College at Thindivanam, to enable the petitioner to approach the second and third respondents for granting affiliation and final approval to the said college.

2. Facts :

2.1. Petitioner is a registered Trust. The object of the Trust is to start educational institutions for the welfare of the public in all districts and to grant scholarship, to the students, studying in the educational institutions and to promote education in the relevant fields of Health, Medicine, Arts, Science, Management, Technical, Engineering, Agriculture, Law, Computers, Human Resource Management, Printing Technology and to start other job oriented courses and also preparing the students belonging to the weaker sections of the society to participate in the competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, Public Service Commission and Union Public Service Commission, Indian Civil Service, Indian Police Service etc. The Trust has its registered office in all the districts in the State of Tamil Nadu and is possessing sufficient lands and resources for construction of educational institutions.

2.2. On 09.07.2007, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary, Department of Law Education, Chennai, requesting for issue of permission/No Objection Certificate for starting a Law College in the name and style of "Saraswathy Law College" at Thindivanam from the academic year 2008-2009. Along with the representation, the petitioner also submitted the necessary application duly enclosing the relevant records required for the purpose of granting permission/NOC. The petitioner received a reply from the second respondent on 03.10.2007, stating that according to Section 6 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act,1996, in short, "the Act", no law college shall be recognized by the University for any purpose except with the prior approval of the Government and the University concerned. It was further stated that for establishment of a new Law College in Tamil Nadu, prior approval of the Government of Tamil Nadu is necessary. Therefore, a direction was given to approach the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has also received a letter dated 08.10.2007 from the Director of Legal Services, Chennai, stating that the representations for grant of permission/NOC was forwarded to the Government for further action.

2.3. In furtherance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner submitted a representation on 25.09.2007 to the first respondent in continuation of its earlier representation dated 09.07.2007. The petitioner also submitted a proposal for starting an unaided private Law College at free of cost in the name and style of Saraswathy Law College (Co-education) at Konerikuppam from the academic year 2008-2009, requesting the first respondent to process the application for issuance of permission/NOC. A copy of the said representation was also submitted to the second and third respondents and the Director of Legal Services, Nandanam, Chennai-35. Since the first and second respondents had not issued No Objection Certificate, the petitioner was not in a position to approach the Bar Council of India, third respondent herein, for taking further steps for approval for starting the private law college. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27590 of 2008 on the file of this Court for a mandamus, directing the first respondent to grant permission/NOC as claimed by the petitioner for starting a private Law College in the name and style of Saraswathy Law College at Thindivanam to enable the petitioner to approach the second and third re


















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top