The main legal point established in the judgment is that the UGC's guidelines lacked statutory force and were not applicable to the grant of autonomous status, and that promissory estoppel cannot be pleaded against law.

JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. J.

1. Since both the writ appeals involve common facts, on consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both the appellants, namely, Biju Patnaik University of Technology (in short, BPUT) and the State Government question the correctness of the impugned order dated 17-1-2012 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15864 of 2011 holding that the action of the State Government in defying the decision of the University Grants Commission (in short, UGC ) for conferment of autonomous status to the present respondent No. 1-college is unsustainable in law and quashing the decision of the Government not to accord the status to the present respondent No. 1 college communicated to the BPUT vide its letter dated 21-5-2011 and directing both the State Government and the BPUT to take immediate steps to carry out their respective obligations under the XIth Plan Guidelines of the UGC for grant of autonomous status to the respondent No. 1-college, urging various facts and legal contentions.

3. Necessary brief facts of the case are stated hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to find out as to whether the impugned order is vitiated in law.

4. Present respondent No. 1-college challenged the inaction of the BPUT in implementing the decision of the UGC in granting autonomous status to the college and taking necessary action in this regard. The UGC under its XIth Plan Guidelines prepared a Scheme for conferment of autonomous status to colleges to increase the number of autonomous colleges in the country with a target to make 10% of eligible colleges autonomous by the end of XIth Plan period, i.e. 2007-2012. In terms of the said guidelines of UGC, the respondent No. 1-college submitted its proposal for autonomous status from the academic session 2010-2011 in the prescribed format duly signed and recommended by the Registrar, BPUT, to the Secretary, UGC vide its letter dated 18-1-2010. On the basis of the said letter, the UGC wrote letters dated 23-4-2010 to both the appellants stating that it has constituted an Expert Committee consisting of three members to evaluate the performance and the academic attainments for conferment of autonomous status on the respondent No. 1-college. Accordingly, both the appellants were requested to nominate their respective nominee to be the members of the Expert Committee. In the said letters of the UGC, it was clearly mentioned that if the State Government fails to provide its nominee within ninety days from the date of issuance of the letter, the Expert Committee may go ahead with the process to evaluate the performance and academic attainments of the college. Since the State Government did not nominate its nominee to the Expert Committee, again UGC wrote the letter dated 25-8-2010 requesting the State Government to nominate its nominee to the Expert Committee and further instruct him to attend and visit the respondent No. 1-college from 30-8-2010 to 1-9-2010. The college vide its letter dated 27-8-2010 also requested the State Government to nominate its representative for the Expert Committee constituted by the UGC for inspection of the respondent No. 1 college which was to be conducted on 30-8-2010. Ultimately, the State Government through the Department of Industries vide its letter dated 8-9-2010 intimated to the UGC that one Mr. D. K. Mallick, Joint Director (Academic), Office of the DTE & T, Orissa, Cuttack is nominated as the State Government nominee to the Expert Committee for the purpose of evaluation of the performance and academic attainments of respondent No. 1-college.

5. Since the State Government failed to nominate its nominee in time despite reminders, the Expert Committee of the UGC consisting of the nominee of BPUT and others conducted inspection of the respondent No. 1-