Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
P. Shanmugavalli - Petitioner
Versus
Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Guindy & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 18396 of 2018 & W.M.P. No. 21705 & 21706 of 2018
Decided On : 25-07-2018
For the Petitioner:P. Srividhya, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Vijayakumar, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a full-time faculty member cannot pursue a full-time degree course simultaneously, as per the provisions of the Anna University Act and Regulations.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Higher Education - Anna University Act, Regulations - 25, 26, 27, 28 - The court discussed the provisions of the Anna University Act and Regulations related to full-time courses and employment, emphasizing that a full-time faculty member cannot pursue a full-time degree course simultaneously. The court upheld the decision of the University to cancel the examinations and directed the petitioner to re-do the course afresh.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orders cancelling her M.E. degree examinations and to release her mark sheets. The petitioner had joined a full-time M.E. course while working as a full-time faculty member, leading to the cancellation of her examinations by the University.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's pursuit of a full-time M.E. course while simultaneously working as a full-time faculty member violated the relevant Rules and Regulations of the Anna University. The court upheld the cancellation of the examinations and directed the petitioner to re-do the course afresh.
Issues: Violation of Rules and Regulations regarding full-time courses and employment, validity of the petitioner's M.E. degree, and the entitlement to a refund of fees paid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a full-time faculty member cannot pursue a full-time degree course simultaneously, as per the provisions of the Anna University Act and Regulations. The petitioner's pursuit of the full-time M.E. course while working as a full-time faculty member was deemed invalid, leading to the cancellation of her examinations.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was deemed to have not pursued the M.E. course for the academic year 2014-2016. The court directed the return of the entire fees paid by the petitioner and closed the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions without costs.
The petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in its proceedings in MEMO No.Syn/ME/MTECH/2017, dated 23.04.2017 and in letter No.53333/JS/GOV/REPLY/2018, dated 08.01.2018 and quash the respective orders therein and further direct the respondents to release the mark sheets for M.E. degree.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she has got admission for M.E. in Anna University and was admitted in the Engineering College for the academic year 2014-2016. It is a two year course. The petitioner got employment as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in S.A.Polytechnic College. The petitioner joined the regular M.E. course and applied for leave in the post of Lecturer and she was relieved from the post of Lecturership by order dated 28.02.2015. As some people were jealous against the petitioner's qualification/higher education/employment, the same has resulted in issuance of show cause notice, dated 19.05.2015 for the alleged violation of the Regulations on the ground that she was working as a Teaching Faculty on Full Time basis in S.A.Polytechnic College, while studying as Full Time student in M.E. at S.A.Engineering College and she was called for explanation. The petitioner has sent a reply on 01.06.2015 to the University. The petitioner has written all the four semesters from 2014. The second respondent, by proceedings dated 23.04.2017, cancelled all the examinations appeared by the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has made a representation to the authority on 11.12.2017. On 08.01.2008, the second respondent confirmed the earlier order dated 23.04.2017. Aggrieved by the above two orders, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for the relief stated supra.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that similar issue came up before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that the administrative decision unless mala-fide, cannot be interfered with. The Division Bench considered the full time and part time course and rendered a finding and the relevant paragraphs in W.A.No.1553 of 2010, etc. (P.Padma and others Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Anna University, Madras -25 and two others), dated 02.12.2010, read as follows:
"25. The appellants have no case that they were not heard before taking a decision by the University. Admittedly, show cause notice was issued to the concerned candidates and their explanations were also called for. The appellants were given a personal hearing by the University. The materials furnished by the appellants confirmed the fact that while simultaneously working as full time faculty members, they have pursued I to III semesters in M.E. Computer Science and Engineering as Full Time Scholars.
26. The term "Full time" implies occupying the whole of the time, whereas "part time" denotes part of the usual working day. Therefore, the very term "Full Time" indicates that a full timer should be available in the institution during the complete working hours. It is not possible for a full time employee to undergo a full time regular course, as it would be difficult for him to attend the classes regularly on a full time basis. There is no question of a regular employee attending the regular full time classes elsewhere. Even in the same city, it would be impossible. In such cases, the candidate has to choose either employment or education. In case the faculty members or other employees are permitted to attend regular colleges, it would undermine the standard of education. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the decision of the University that students who have undergone the full time course while simultaneously working as full time faculty members would not be permitted to appear for the semester examination or to enter the next semester.
27. This Court is concerned only with the decision making process. In matters like this
