Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1800
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Anna University rep.by its Registrar Chennai
Versus
Council of Architecture, rep. by its Registrar New Delhi
Writ Petition No. 15930 of 2012
Decided on: 30-04-2013
For the Petitioner: P.H. Aravind Pandian, AAG.
For the Respondent:N. Muralikumaran, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the university to a 15% quota for NRIs and Consortium of Industries, emphasizing the need for a transparent and fair admission process.
Headnote:
Council of Architecture - Reduction of Student Intake - Architects Act, 1972, Section 21, 44, 45 - The court discussed the Architects Act, 1972, specifically Section 21, 44, and 45, which empower the Council of Architecture to prescribe minimum standards of architectural education and make regulations. The court highlighted the regulations issued by the Council of Architecture in 1983, which set forth the requirements for architectural education and the oversight of standards through periodic inspections.
Fact of the Case:
The Anna University challenged a decision by the Council of Architecture to reduce the permitted annual intake of students from 80 to 40 due to deficiencies. The university had admitted students in excess of the permitted intake, leading to the reduction decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deficiencies related to illegal admissions, lack of teaching faculty, and inadequate built-up area had been rectified. The court also emphasized the need for a transparent and fair system for admissions under the NRI and Consortium of Industries quotas.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the reduction in student intake, the rectification of deficiencies, and the procedures for admissions under specific quotas.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the university was entitled to a 15% quota for NRIs and Consortium of Industries, but emphasized the need for a transparent and fair admission process. The court also directed the Council of Architecture to consider public interest and the university's reputation when making decisions.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the university to inform the Council of Architecture about the rectification of deficiencies and to ensure a transparent admission process for specific quotas.
1. The Anna University has come up with the above writ petition challenging a communication sent by the Council of Architecture, informing them of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Council, to reduce the permitted annual intake of students from 80 to 40 from the academic years 2012-2013 for a period of five years, on the ground that there were some deficiencies.
2. I have heard Mr. P.H. Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.Muralikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein.
3. The Department of Architecture, was originally started as a constituent of the Guindy Engineering College, affiliated to the Madras University way back in the year 1957. After the issue of the Anna University Act, 1978, it became a unit of the Anna University. It was a pioneer in the field of education in Architecture and Planning.
4. But, even before the Anna University was carved out of the Madras University, the Parliament enacted the Architects Act, 1972 and it came into force on 1.9.1972. The Act provided for the constitution of a council known as Council of Architecture. The Council of Architecture was entrusted by Section 21 of the Act to prescribe the minimum standards of architectural education required for granting recognised qualifications by colleges and institutions in India.
5. While Section 44 empowered the Central Government to make rules with respect to the matters enumerated in Sub-Section (2) thereof, Section 45 empowered the Council of Architecture itself to make regulations. The regulations so framed by the Council, may provide for
(i) the courses and periods of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subject of examinations and standards of proficiency therein obtained in college or institution for grant of recognised qualifications;
(ii) the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for architectural education; and
(iii) the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and conditions of admission to such examinations.
6. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 45, the Council of Architecture issued a set of regulations known as Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983. It appears from the web site of the Council of Architecture that there are 280 institutions, which impart architectural education in India leading to recognised qualifications. The standards of education imparted in these institutions, whether they are constituent colleges or departments of universities or deemed universities or affiliated colleges/schools or IITs or NITs or autonomous institutions, are governed by these regulations issued in 1983. These regulations set forth the requirement of eligibility for admission, course duration, standards of staff and accommodation, course content, examination, etc. The Council of Architecture oversees maintenance of standards periodically by conducting inspections through committees of experts.
7. It appears that the annual permitted intake allowed by the Council of Architecture for the School of Architecture and Planning of the Anna University originally stood at 40 and the same was enhanced to 60 in the year 2009-10. The intake was further enhanced from 60 to 80 from the academic year 2010-11. It is needless to mention that such enhancement of the annual permitted intake was allowed on the basis of an inspection and a comprehensive evaluation conducted by a Committee of Experts.
8. But unfortunately, 14 students were admitted during the year 2010-2011 over and above the permitted intake of 80 and hence, the Council of Architecture sought clarifications from the petitioner university. The Vice Chancellor informed the respondent of the circumstances under which excess admission was made. In the light of the admission of students in excess of the permitted intake, the university also requested the respondent to c
