The main legal point established in the judgment is that the guidelines prescribed by the University do not have statutory force and cannot be the sole criterion for rejecting the plea of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for Writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Letter No.4343/AU/CA/CAC/Autonomous/2022 dated 07.09.2022 received on 12.09.2022 quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent University Grants Commission to pass order on the application of the petitioner college for grant of Fresh Autonomous Status for the academic year 2022-2023 dated 26.05.2022 independently within the time limit fixed by this Court.)

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Letter No.4343/AU/CA/CAC/Autonomous/2022 dated 07.09.2022 received on 12.09.2022 and consequently direct the 1st respondent University Grants Commission to pass order on the application of the petitioner college for grant of Fresh Autonomous Status for the academic year 2022-2023 dated 26.05.2022 independently within the time limit fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner Management submitted an application to the respondent University as well as the University Grants Commission (in short 'the UGC') seeking declaration from the UGC for autonomous status of the college i.e, Engineering College run by the petitioner Trust on 26.05.2022.

3. The said application filed by the petitioner having been processed by the University was rejected by a speaking order dated 07.09.2022. In the said order, the University has stated that, the College, for whom such autonomous status now sought for, does not meet the guidelines fixed by the University for award of fresh autonomous status. Therefore, the request for forwarding the application of the institution for according fresh autonomous status to the institution stood rejected.

4. Challenging the said order passed by the University dated 07.09.2022 and also for a consequential order by way of mandamus to the respondent UGC to independently consider the application submitted by the petitioner and to pass orders thereon for conferring the autonomous status to the institution, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Making submissions on behalf of the petitioner Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel would contend that, the status of the guidelines prescribed by the second respondent Anna University as to whether has got any force of law to be strictly followed or implemented has already been decided by this Court in W.P.Nos.14351 & 14353 of 2021 dated 06.09.2021 in the matter of Annapoorana Engineering College Vs. University Grants Commission and Anr. where, the learned Senior Counsel would be able to point out that, those guidelines issued by the Anna University having been considered was declared to be that, it does not have the status of the statute. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:

“20. In view of the above discussion, the award of extension of autonomous status guidelines formulated by the syndicate in the meeting held on 09.11.2018, does not have the status and consequently does not have the force of law. The first issue is answered accordingly.”

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited the attention of this Court in the further order passed by the learned Judge in the same judgment, where, the following direction has been given:

“23. In view of the above, the UGC ought to have independently applied its mind and assigned reasons while rejecting the proposal submitted by the college. Only by assigning reasons, the application of mind on the part of UGC can be deciphered. This is more so since such rejection orders are subjected to judicial scrutiny and the Court while considering the same, must be able to find out the application of mind only through the reasons assigned in the order.”

7. Relying upon this decision, the learned Senior Counsel would further contend that, in fact the role of the UGC in considering the application submitte