Madras High Court
Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College ... vs Thiruvalluvar University Rep. By ... on 4 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)3MLJ65
Author: D. Murugesan
Bench: D. Murugesan
ORDER D. Murugesan, J.
Page 1360
1. As the petitioners have approached with a common grievance, all the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposed by this common order.
2. Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.8685 & 8186 of 2006, obtained recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education on 18.11.2005 to start the Secondary (B.Ed.) Course of one year duration from the academic session 2005-2006. It also obtained the No Objection Certificate from the State Government on 23.12.2005. As the students admitted in the said college should write the examination and obtain the degrees from Thiruvalluvar University, affiliation for the course is a pre-condition for allowing the students to write the examination. Therefore, the college applied for affiliation to the respondent-University on 20.12.2004. There were exchange of communications relating to the consideration of the application for affiliation and finally the University granted its provisional affiliation on 16.3.2006 for the academic year 2005-2006. Before the grant of provisional affiliation, a circular dated 9.3.2006 was issued to all the colleges which have been affiliated after October 2005 to follow one of the two norms specified in the circular viz., (1) if the college wants to conduct the B.Ed. Degree program from June 2006 it may join in the main stream and (2) if the college conducts the course from the date of affiliation granted by the University and completes 10 months i.e., 180 working days and to take the examination to be held in October/November, 2006 and to wait till the month of April/May 2007 to join in the main stream. Pursuant to the said circular, some of the colleges submitted Page 1361 their reply and requested the University to permit the students to write the examination during the current academic year itself. However, by order dated 22.3.2006, the petitioner-college was informed by the University that the request for conducting the B.Ed. examination in April, 2006 or in the first week of June, 2006 was not feasible of compliance. Hence, the petitioner has questioned both the impugned order dated 22.3.2006 and the circular dated 9.3.2006 in the writ petitions.
3. National College of Education, the petitioner in W.P.No.8687 of 2006, obtained recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education on 2.11.2005 to start the Secondary (B.Ed.) Course of one year duration from the academic session 2005-2006. It also obtained the No Objection Certificate from the State Government on 5.12.2005. The college also applied for affiliation to the respondent-University on 23.8.2005. There were exchange of communications relating to the consideration of the application for affiliation and finally the University granted its provisional affiliation on 3.3.2006 for the academic year 2005-2006. By order dated 22.3.2006, the petitioner-college was informed by the University that the request for conducting the B.Ed. examination in April, 2006 or in the first week of June, 2006 was not feasible of compliance. Hence, the petitioner has questioned both the impugned order dated 22.3.2006 and the circular dated 9.3.2006 in the writ petition.
4. Dhivya College of Education, the petitioner in W.P.No.8869 of 2006, obtained recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education on 16.11.2005 to start the Secondary (B.Ed.) Course of one year duration from the academic session 2005-2006. It also obtained the No Objection Certificate from the State Government on 9.4.2005. The college also applied for affiliation to the respondent-University on 6.8.2005. There were exchange of communications relating to the consideration of the application for affiliation and finally the University granted its provisional affiliation on 3.3.2006 for the academic year 2005-2006. By order dated 22.3.2006, the petitioner-college was informed by the University that the request for conducting the B.Ed. examination in April, 2006 or in the first week of June, 2006 was not feasible of compliance. Hence, the petitioner has questioned both the impugned order dated 22.3.2006 and the circular dated 9.3.2006 in the writ petition.
5. Mr.G.Masilamani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that inasmuch as the National Council for Teacher Education had granted recognition for the academic year 2005-2006, the colleges are entitled to admit the students for the current academic year. He would further submit that in fact the State Government also had granted No Objection Certificates for the same academic year entitling the petitioners to admit the students for the academic year 2005-2006. Hence the date of admission made by the petitioners shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the minimum number of attendance required by the University to enable the students to write the examination during the current year itself. His further contention is that the petitioners were made to believe that the students admitted would be permitted to write the examination, as whenever Page 1362 the particulars regarding the request for affiliation was asked by the University, there were no indication that admissions should not be made. He would also submit that the teachers of the petitioners colleges have been appointed as examiners and the examination fee from the students have been collected by the respondent University and having acted so, the petitioners were let to believe that the students would be permitted to write the examination in the current year and there was legitimate expectation by the petitioners. Lastly he would submit that under similar circumstances, some of the colleges were permitted to forward the list of students admitted to write the examination on payment of a fine of Rs.5,000/= and the petitioners alone had been discriminated. On the above grounds, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that both the circular dated 9.3.2006 and the impugned orders dated 22.3.2006 rejecting the request of the petitioners for permitting the students to write the examination during the current year are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.
6. In reply to the above submissions, Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-University would submit that inasmuch as the Regulation requires a minimum attendance of 75% to enable the students to write the examination, the petitioners cannot seek for a direction to permit such of those students who have not put in the minimum percentage of attendance. In fact he would submit that in all these cases, affiliations were granted only during the month of March, 2006 and as a necessary corollary, none of the students could have earned the minimum 75% of attendance out of the total number of 900 instructional hours in a minimum period of 180 days. The attendance could be calculated only from the date of affiliation and not from the date of admission of the students without there being any affiliation. The request of the petitioners to permit the students to write the examination, if granted, would be contrary to the Regulations. He would submit that in no case the affiliation could be retrospective and, therefore, the admissions made by the petitioners prior to the affiliation cannot be ratified for the purpose of attendance. Insofar as the submission as to the legitimate expectation and the benefit extended to some other colleges, he would submit that in none of the communications of the University, the petitioners were permitted to admit the students without there being affiliation. Hence, there is no question of legitimate expectation. So far as the last submission is concerned, no direction could be issued to the University to commit a wrong in the same way it had committed earlier. For all the above submission, the learned Additional Advocate General prays for the dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. In the light of the above submissions, the only point that arises for consideration is as follows:- "Whether the students admitted by the petitioners prior to the grant of affiliation would be entitled to write the examination by giving due credit to the attendance earned by them from the date of admission till the date of affiliation?
8. Before entering into the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to first extract the relevant orders of NCTE, State Government and the University for Page 1363 better appreciation of the rival contentions. The order of the National Council for Teacher Education dated 18.11.2005 granting recognition to the Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College, Tholudur reads as under:-
Preamble....
TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA PART III SETION 4 ORDER In terms of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College, Rajanagar, Vaithiyanathapuram, Tholudur 606 303, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu had submitted an application to the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition for Secondary (B.Ed.) course of one year from the academic session 2005-06.
2. On scrutiny of the application submitted by the institution, the documents attached therewith and the input received from the visiting team, the Committee has noted the following:
a. The institution has acquired the land for setting up the teacher education institution.
b. The institution will ensure that the permanent building is constructed within a period of 3 years on the acquired land.
c. The institution has created an Endowment Fund of Rs.5.00 lakhs and a Reserve Fund of Rs.5.00 lakhs.
d. The institution has selected the Principal and Seven teachers for the said course.
3. Now therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the Southern Regional Committee hereby grants recognition to Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College, Rajanagar, Vaithiyanathapuram, Tholudur 606 303, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu to offer Secondary (B.Ed.) course of one year duration from the academic session 2005-06 with an annual intake of 100 students, subject to fulfillment of the following:
a) The institution shall ensure that Eight exclusive faculty members (Principal and Seven teachers) duly approved by the affiliating university are in position for an intake of 100 students and a report to this effect shall be sent to the Southern Regional Committee immediately and in any case before commencement of admissions for the course.
b) The institution shall shift to its own premises within three years from the date of recognition (in case the course is started in temporary premises).
c) The institution shall, within one month of the receipt of recognition order, convert the endowment fund account into a joint account to be operated along with an official of the Regional Committee.
d) The institution shall comply with the various other norms and Page 1364
4. Further, the recognition is subject to fulfillment of all such other requirements as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like the State Government, etc.
5. The institution shall submit to the Regional Committee a Performance Appraisal Report at the end of each academic year along with a copy of the approval of the affiliating body to the appointment of faculty members, and the statement of annual accounts duly audited by a Chartered Accountant.
6. If the institution contravenes any of the above conditions or any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules, Regulations and Orders made or issued thereunder, the Southern Regional Committee may withdraw the recognition under the Provisions of Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993.
7. The earlier Recognition Order issued to the institution vide F.TN/SEC/SRO/NCTE/2005-2006/3300 dated 03.10.2005 stands withdrawn.
As similar conditions were imposed on other petitions by NCTE while granting recognition, I do not intend to extract all of them.
9. The order of the State Government dated 23.12.2005 granting No Objection Certificate to Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College reads as under:- Higher Education (E1) Department G.O.(Ms.)No. 527 Dated: 23.12.2005
1. G.O.(1D) No.98, Higher Education, dated 7.5.2003. 2. G.O.(Ms) No.409, Higher Education, dated 5.7.2004. 3. From the Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee,NCTE, Bangalore letter NO.F.TN/SEC/SRO/NCTE/2005-06/4079 dated 18.11.05. 4. From the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai D.O.Letter No.5516/Q3/2005 dated 14.12.2005.
ORDER:-
1. The Managing Trustee, Arumugam Mudaliyar Sornam Educational Trust, Tittagudi, Cuddalore District has sent an application to the Southern Regional Committee for National Council for Teacher Education/State Government seeking permission to the Educational Agency to start a self-financing College of Education in the name and style, "Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College", Vaithiyanathapuram, Tholudur, Cuddalore District during the year 2005-2006.
2. The Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore has given recognition to start the above said College of Education during the year 2005-2006 with an intake of 100 students.
3. The Government, after the scrutiny of the application and examination of the report and the recommendations of the Director of Collegiate Education in the letter 4th read above and taking into account the Page 1365 recognition given by the National Council for Teacher Education in its letter 3rd read above, convey No Objection to the Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore for consideration for grant of affiliation to "Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College", Vaithiyanathapuram, Tholudur, Cuddalore District to be started by "Arumugam Mudaliyar Sornam Educational Trust", Tittagudi, Cuddalore District on self financing basis, temporarily in R.S.No.202/2 Tholudur, Cuddalore District and permanently in the lands bearing Survey No.66/5, Rajanagar, Vaithiyanathapuram, Tholudur, Cuddalore District measuring an extent of 5.36 acres with the courses of Tamil, English, Mathematics, Bio-Science, Physical Science, Commerce, Economics, Social Science and Computer Science subjects with an intake of 100 students in accordance with National Council for Teacher Education Acts and Rules/Regulations made thereunder, during the academic year 2005-2006.
4. The Educational Agency should fulfill the following conditions also:-
i) The management should execute an agreement in stamp paper to abide by all conditions prescribed by the Government/National Council for Teacher Education.
ii) The lands mentioned in para 3 above should not be utilized for any other purpose other than college purposes.
iii) The Government will not grant any financial assistance at any time.
iv) The teaching and non teaching staff shall be appointed as per the yardstick prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education/University Grants Commission and they should possess the qualifications prescribed by the respective University.
v) The management should not collect capitation fee or donation in any form other than the admissible fees as per the prescription of the Government from time to time.
vi) The management shall collect Tuition fees, Special fees, Application fees, Registration fees, laboratory fees, Security deposit only as per the rates prescribed by the Director of Collegiate Education/Government.
vii) The management should strictly follow the guidelines issued by the Director of Collegiate Education during admission time and should fill up 50% of the seats as well as additional seats by adhering to the reservations policy of the Government.
viii) If the management creates a situation causing the closure of the college for any reason, the Government will not come forward to take over the college.
ix) The management should strictly adhere to such other conditions prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education/State Government/University.
x) The management should provide the fire prevention facilities and Rain Water Harvesting provision in the college buildings and also to obtain Electricity Board safety certificate.
(By order of the Governor) Secretary to Government Page 1366 As similar orders were passed in respect of other Colleges while granting NOC, the orders need not be extracted.
10. The circular of the respondent University dated 9.3.2006 reads as under:-
TU/R/EXAM/APRIL 2006/No.533 Dated: 09.03.2006 To The Correspondent/Principal Sir, Sub: Thiruvalluvar University-Examinations April 2006-B.Ed. Colleges-Affiliated after October 2005 - Option - Requested - regarding.
Ref: Resolution of the affiliation Committee dt. 04.03.2006. **** Kind attention of the Secretaries/ Principals is invited to Chapter XXVII section 46 of the statutes, which reads as follows: "Affiliation or approval shall in no case be granted with retrospective effect. Attendance of courses of instruction provided in colleges or in subjects before affiliation or approval is granted shall not qualify for the grant of certificate of attendance and such attendance shall not entitle any candidate to exemption from the production of certificate of attendance".
The affiliation committee of this University in its meeting held on 04.03.2006 has resolved to inform the Secretaries/Principals of the following College of Education which have been recently affiliated after October 2005, to follow one of the norms specified below for the students admitted to the course during the academic year 2005-06, so as to enable them to take their annual examination to which they would become eligible.
(1) If the college wants to conduct the B.Ed. Degree program from June 2006 it may join in the main stream.
(2) If the college conducts the course from the date of affiliation granted by this University and completes 10 months i.e. 180 working days and to take the examination to be held in October/November 2006 and to wait till the month of April/May 2007 to join in the main stream.
In view of the above rule position and committee's resolution, the Secretaries/ Principals are requested to give a written request with option (1) or (2) above which they are going to follow on or before 17.03.2006 for taking further action in the matter.
Registrar i/c
11. The impugned order of the respondent University dated 22.3.2006 reads as under:-
No.TU/R/B.Ed.Examination/2006/No.295 Dd: 22.03.2006 To
1. The Secretary, O.P.R.Memorial College of Education, Vadalur, Cuddalore Dt. Page 1367 2. The Correspondent, Dhivya College of Education, Chetpet 606 801 3. The Correspondent, National College of Education, Vadakuthu Vill, Panruti Tk. 4. The Correspondent, New Millennium College of Education, Kumarapettai, Cuddalore. 5. The Correspondent/Managing Trustee, St.John's College of Education for Women, Vellore-1. 6. The Correspondent, T.S.M.College of Education, Kallakurichi. 7. The Correspondent, Sree Arumugam Teacher Training College (B.Ed.) Tholuthur. 8. The Secretary Arcot Sri Mahalakshmi Women's College of Education, Villupakkam, Vellore Dt.
Sir, Sub: Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore - Affiliation Granted to certain Education Colleges for B.Ed. Degree course during the year 2005-2006 - Conducting Examinations in April 2006 - Reg.
Ref: From the Secretary, OPR Memorial College of Education, Vadalur, Cuddalore Dt. and seven others Representation dated 16.03.2006. **** I am by direction to invite your kind attention to your representation cited and to state that the University has considered the case of private B.Ed. colleges which have been recently affiliated after October 2005 and decided to inform them as follows:
(i) If the college wants to conduct the B.Ed. Degree program from June 2006 they can join in the main stream.
(ii) They can conduct the course from the date of affiliation granted and complete 10 months i.e. 180 working days and to take the Examination during November/December 2006 and to wait for the period from November/December 2006 to May/June 2007 to join in the main stream.
(iii) Chapter XXVII section 46 of the Statutes reads as follows:
Affiliation or approval shall in no case be granted with retrospective effect. Attendance at courses of instruction provided in colleges or in subjects before affiliation or approval is granted shall not qualify for the grant of certificates of attendance, and such attendance shall not entitle any candidate to exemption from the production of certificates of attendance They have to follow the Statutes related for grant of affiliation.
In view of the position stated above, I am by direction to state that your request for conducting the B.Ed. examination in April 2006 or in the first week of June 2006 is not feasible of compliance.
Thanking you, Registrar i/c Page 1368
12. The power to grant recognition to start Teacher Training Course including the degree level shall vest only with the National Council for Teacher Education (in short NCTE). The National Council for Teacher Education Regulations and the conditions on which the recognition is granted in terms of Section 14(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act are binding on the institutes availing such recognition. Condition No.3(a) of the conditions of recognition contemplates that the institution shall ensure that eight exclusive faculty members duly approved by the affiliating University are in a position for an intake of 100 students and a report to this effect shall be sent to the Southern Regional Committee immediately and in any case before commencement of admissions for the course. A plain reading of the above condition shows that before admission to the course is commenced, the institution should get the approval of the affiliating University as to the faculty members. The fact of approval shall be communicated to the NCTE by the colleges by way of reports. Unless these two conditions are complied, the institution cannot admit the students. Condition No.4 further contemplates that the recognition is subject to the fulfillment of all such other requirements as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like the State Government, etc. So far as the grant of affiliation is concerned, the respondent University is alone empowered. The grant of affiliation entitles the colleges not only to admit the students but also enables the students so admitted to write the examination subject to the training in the prescribed syllabi and fulfilling the attendance norms. If both the Condition Nos.3(a) & 4 are read together, it is obvious that even as per the conditions of recognition, no student can be admitted before the approval of the faculty members and a report to that effect is sent to the NCTE, and further no student would be entitled to write the examination unless he/she earns the minimum attendance as per the norms. As per Condition No.4, grant of affiliation is also one of the requirements and without which a mere attendance in the class without there being a conferment of degree would be of no use. Individual additional affidavits dated 2.4.2006 have been filed by the petitioners stating that the NCTE does not insist on the compliance of Condition No.3(a) of the order granting recognition due to the ensuing condition contained in paragraph 5 of the recognition order. According to the petitioners, the institutions should submit to the Regional Committee a Performance Appraisal report at the end of each academic year along with a copy of approval of the affiliating body to the appointment of faculty members and the statement of annual accounts duly audited by a Chartered Accountant. In view of the said condition, the approval of faculty members would be decided only at the time of grant of affiliation. In my opinion, a plain reading of Condition Nos.3(a) and 5 of the order of recognition relates to different and distinct directions. As per Condition No.3(a), without there being approval, the institution cannot admit the students. The approval of affiliation should be communicated to the NCTE at the end of each academic year. Merely because Condition No.5 contemplates a performance appraisal report to be submitted at the end of each academic year along with a copy of affiliation, that does not mean that the institution should not obtain approval of faculty members as well the affiliation before admitting the students.
Page 1369
13. Coming to the No Objection Certificate issued by the State Government, while the Government grants such a certificate, it also imposes certain conditions for fulfillment by the Educational Agency. Condition No.4(iv) contemplates that the teaching and non teaching staff shall be appointed as per the yardstick prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. This condition shall be read along with Condition No.3(a) of the grant of recognition by the NCTE relating to the approval of the faculty members by the affiliating University. Condition No.4(ix) contemplates that the management should strictly adhere to such other conditions prescribed by the NCTE/State Government/ University. As per this clause, the Regulation relating to the minimum attendance norms prescribed by the University must be strictly adhered to. Only on these conditions, the No Objection Certificate is granted.
14. A combined reading of all the conditions relating to recognition and NOC shows that grant of recognition by NCTE or NOC by the State shall only entitle the grantee to establish and start an educational institution and it would not mean that by such recognition or NOC the institute could admit the students even before obtaining affiliation. Neither recognition nor NOC alone would be sufficient for the educational institute to impart training and thereby compel the University to hold the examination for those students without there being affiliation. A mere grant of recognition or NOC would be of no use as students cannot be imparted training and consequently, obtain degree in the absence of affiliation. A University which is obligated to its statutes shall ensure as to whether the students had put in minimum attendance and had undergone the course in the prescribed syllabi and had been imparted training by qualified teachers before allowing such students to write the examination. It would be only in conformity with the regulations of the University if the attendance secured by students, after the affiliation was granted is taken into consideration to arrive the minimum required number of days to write the examination. Any other conclusion shall not be in tune to the object requiring affiliation from the University for registering the candidates to write the examination. In this context, it may also be observed that the right to establish an educational institution on the strength of recognition from NCTE or NOC from the State Government does not carry with it an automatic right of affiliation in terms of statute 46 of Chapter XXVII of the statutes of University. Moreover, the University is entitled to ensure the compliance of the conditions of affiliation which are not inconsistent with the regulations framed by NCTE. In this context, a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Loordhuammal Educational Trust v. The University of Madras 2005(2) CTC 513 can be referred to wherein the Division Bench has observed that no admission can be granted by a college until affiliation is first granted by the University and consequently, there cannot be any order of this Court permitting students to appear in the examinations when the college has not even been granted affiliation.
15. So far as the legitimate expectation is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would rely on the proceedings of the University Page 1370 dated 16.3.2006. In the said communication, the University deciding to grant provisional affiliation, had taken note of the interest of large number of students admitted by the management. According to Mr,G.Masilamani, as the University was aware of the students already admitted and only in their interest the affiliation was granted, both the students and the colleges legitimately expected that the students would be permitted to write the examinations. His further submission is that having accepted the examination fee and appointed the examiners, the University cannot now go back and refuse permission to the students to write the examination. In my opinion, both the submissions have no force as while granting affiliation, of course, the University had referred to the fact that "considering the interest of large number of students admitted by the management". A mere grant of affiliation does not mean the recognition of students already admitted. In law, there cannot be retrospective affiliation, as all affiliations would be only prospective. The grant of affiliation was subject to fulfillment of as many as seven conditions and those conditions were imposed taking into consideration the interest of the students admitted. Merely because the Syndicate was aware of the fact that the students were already admitted, that does not mean it empowers the Syndicate to violate its own regulation as to the requirement of minimum attendance put in by the students from the date of affiliation, as the attendance earned by the student before affiliation cannot be counted for the purpose of fulfilling the norms as to the minimum days of attendance. In fact, even before the affiliation was granted, by the Circular dated 9.3.2006, the petitioners were informed that affiliation in no case would be retrospective and the attendance of courses before affiliation shall not qualify the students for the grant of certificate. The imposition to condition (1) and (2) are in conformity with the regulations and as such, it cannot be interfered. There cannot be any legitimate expectation contrary to the Statutes. For the same reason, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as to the appointment of examiners and collection of examination fee cannot be put against the University to insist that it should conduct examination for those students contrary to the regulations.
16. Coming to the last submission as to the grant of permission to the students of some other colleges to write the examination even though they were admitted prior to the affiliation and that they did not possess the minimum attendance of 75% after the affiliation, in my opinion, the said submission also cannot be accepted. In this regard, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr. 2003 (5) SCC 437 could be usefully referred to. That was a case relating to the grant of renewal of permits to operate foreign deep-sea fishing vessels. As per the policy that was in vogue, licences were granted to various persons with condition of renewal to operate foreign deep-sea fishing vessels. The Government subsequently had changed the policy not to renew such licences. Inspite of the policy, some of the licensees were granted renewal but for some others renewal of licences were rejected. The issue as to the legitimate Page 1371 expectation as well the Doctrines of promissory estoppel were put in before the Supreme Court. While considering the claim, the Supreme Court had found in paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows:-
12. Doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot come in the way of public interest. Indisputably, public interest has to prevail over private interest. The case at hand shows that a conscious policy decision has been taken and there is no statutory compulsion to act contrary. In that context, it cannot be said that the respondents have acquired any right for renewal. The High Court was not justified in observing that the policy decision was contrary to statute and for that reason direction for consideration of the application for renewal was necessary. Had the High Court not recorded any finding on the merits of respective stands, direction for consideration in accordance with law would have been proper and there would not have been any difficulty in accepting the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents. But having practically foreclosed any consideration by the findings recorded, consideration of the application would have been a mere formality and grant of renewal would have been the inevitable result, though it may be against the policy decision. That renders the High Court judgment indefensible.
13. What remains now to be considered, is the effect of permission granted to the thirty two vessels. As highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants, even if it is accepted that there was any improper permission, that may render such permissions vulnerable so far as the thirty two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of the respondents. It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in short "the Constitution") cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality.
17. In fact, the Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that the claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right. For legal purposes, expectation is not the same as anticipation. Legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law. Applying the above principles, we must look at regulation viz., Statute 46 of Chapter XXVII which mandates that there cannot be no retrospective affiliation and the attendance after the affiliation would not be taken into consideration. In the wake of the statute prohibiting the retrospective affiliation, the attendance earned by the students before the Page 1372 grant of affiliation cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of attendance and in this regard, there cannot be any legitimate expectation. Therefore, the submission of Mr.G.Masilamani, as to the legitimate expectation and issue of promissory estoppel has to be rejected.
18. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a statutory authority to commit a wrong in violation of the statutes. In a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court has held that no writ can be issued to the authorities either to disobey the law or to violate the law. See AIR 1971 SC 2399 Narinder Chand Hem Raj and Ors. v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory H.P. and Ors.; AIR 1986 SC 1188 Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.; 1997 (2) SCC 713 Santhosh Kumar Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.; 1997 (10) SCC 264 Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad and Ors. v. Dr.Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors.
19. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the challenge to both the orders. In my opinion, the two conditions imposed in circular dated 9.3.2006 are based on the regulation particularly Statute 46 of Chapter XXVII which reads as follows: "Affiliation or approval shall in no case be granted with retrospective effect. Attendance of courses of instruction provided in colleges or in subjects before affiliation or approval is granted shall not qualify for the grant of certificate of attendance and such attendance shall not entitle any candidate to exemption from the production of certificate of attendance."
20. The order dated 22.3.2006 is consequential to the above circular in denying the students for writing the examination to be held in April,2006 as the students had not earned the minimum days of attendance viz., 75% and they had not put in 900 hours of training in a period of 180 days. No exception could be taken with the above impugned orders. For all the above reasons, I hold that the students admitted and the attendance earned by them, if any, prior to the grant of affiliation cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the minimum days of attendance required for examinations and consequently, I find no merit in the challenge to both the impugned order and circular. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.9643 to 9645, 9647 to 9649, 9802 to 9804 & 9112 to 9114 of 2006 are also dismissed.