Kerala High Court
The Manager vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 29 November, 2019
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(C).No.20279 OF 2017(H)
PETITIONER/S:
THE MANAGER,
MARIAN COLLEGE,
KUTTIKANAM,
PEERMADE-685 531.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560.
2 VICE CHANCELLOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).21480/2019(H) & WP(C).28164/2019(U),
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 &
21480/19 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(C).No.28164 OF 2019(U)
PETITIONER/S:
THE MANAGER,
MARIAN COLLEGE,
KUTTIKKANAM, PEERUMADE,
IDUKKI-685 531.
BY ADVS.
SRI. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560.
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).20279/2017(H) &
WP(C).21480/2019(H), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 &
21480/19 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(C).No.21480 OF 2019(H)
PETITIONER/S:
RESHMA JESTIN,
AGED 22 YEARS,
KALLUPURAKKAL HOUSE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 560.
2 TITUS II TEACHERS COLLEGE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 101.
3 MARIAN COLLEGE,
KUTTIKKANAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
KUTTIKKANAM P.O., PEERMEDU,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 531
BY ADVS.
R1 - SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
R2 - SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.PAUL JACOB (P)
SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SRI.LEO LUKOSE
SMT.SUZANNE KURIAN
SRI.AMAL AMIR ALI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).20279/2017(H) &
WP(C).28164/2019(U), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 &
21480/19 4
JUDGMENT
The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of admissions made by the Manager of Marian College, Kuttikanam in the additional batches of B.Com and M.Com, and in M.A. Communications and Media Studies, a fresh course, on the basis of the deeming provision contained under Sec.118 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1985'), and other attendant circumstances. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment. Facts and documents available from W.P.(C) No.20279 of 2017 are relied upon for the disposal of the writ petitions. W.P.(C) Nos.20279 of 2017 and 28164 of 2019 are filed by the Manager of the College stated above, and W.P.(C) No.21480 of 2019 is filed by a student seeking to permit her to complete the B.Ed course in the college in question.
2. Petitioner is the Manager of an aided college which was granted Academic Autonomy by the U.G.C., on the recommendation of the State Government and the M.G. University. Now the U.G.C Scheme on Autonomous Colleges, read with the University Act as amended in W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 5 2014, an autonomous college can decide the syllabus and course contents and also frame new courses and programmes, is the basic contention advanced. The number of students to be trained also can be decided by the College. No separate affiliation of the University is required. Therefore, petitioner submitted a proposal in terms of Sec.118 of Act, 1985 for a new M.A. programme and one additional batch each in the existing B.Com & M.Com programme. However, the University has returned the same, stating that it is for the Syndicate to consider it, which will be done in due course.
3. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that, as per Sec.108 of Act, 1985, the Academic Council of the college is having the power to scrutinize the proposals of the Boards of Studies of an Autonomous College, with regard to the courses of study, academic regulations, curricula, syllabi and modifications thereof. So far as it is concerning with institution of a new programme of study, the Academic Council has to recommend to the Governing Council of the institution and proposal for new programmes of study. Section 114 of Act, 1985 dealing with powers and functions of the Governing Council, empowers the W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 6 Governing Council to approve and submit to the University, the institution of new programmes. Therefore, it is an exclusive prerogative of the Governing Council to approve new programmes and it can submit to the University the above said programmes which have already been approved by them.
4. It is also pointed out that, as per Sec.118(2) of Act, 1985, the Governing Council once recommended any programme to the University, the Vice-Chancellor shall cause the proposal to be placed before the relevant Board of Studies of the University and the Board of Studies or the Expert Committee of the University shall within thirty working days from the date of receipt of the proposal, consider it for the Academic Programme and approve, reject or return the same. The 2nd proviso to Sec.118(3) says that the college has to be informed of the decision taken by the relevant body within thirty working days, failing which, the proposal would be deemed to have been approved.
5. Now coming to the facts, the programmes specified above were forwarded to the University on 28.03.2017. However, certain defects were noted and W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 7 after curing the same, it was re-submitted on 28.04.2017. Thereafter, on 07.06.2017, Ext.P9 communication dated 07.06.2017 was forwarded by the Principal of the college to the Registrar of the M.G. University stating that since no action as initiated in contemplation of Sec.118 of Act, 1985, by virtue of the deeming provision, the proposal submitted is deemed to have been approved, and therefore, no further affiliation is necessary. On receipt of the same, the University has issued Ext.P10 communication dated 12.06.2017, basically stating that, in order to start a new course, there should be permission of the University and if the petitioner has admitted students and continue with the course, it will be at the risk and cost of the college. These are the basic background facts projected by the petitioner in the writ petition.
6. However, thereafter a communication dated 04.08.2017 is issued by the University, stating that, as per the orders of the University, it is decided not to grant any approval for fresh programmes or colleges etc. for the academic year 2017-18, and therefore, the application submitted by the college is rejected. It W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 8 is basically challenging the said order and the consequential action, W.P.(C) No.20279 of 2017 is filed by the Manager.
7. Thereupon, the Principal of the college has submitted Ext.P8 representation, requesting to grant approval to a new programme viz., M.A. Communication & Media Studies and to the additional batches of B.Com and M.Com for the academic year 2017-18, since the college has admitted students on the basis of the deeming provision. The said representation was considered by the University and has issued Ext.P9 communication dated 30.10.2018, stating that the Syndicate has considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and decided to keep it in abeyance, since the other connected writ petition is pending before this Court. Even though petitioner has submitted Exts.P12 and P13 representations, there was no fruitful action from the side of the University. However, later, the University issued Ext.P14 order dated 18.10.2019, regularizing the admissions, however, imposing a fine of Rs.5 lakhs. It is basically challenging Ext.P14 so far as the imposition of fine, the said writ petition is filed.
W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 9
8. As pointed out earlier, W.P.(C) No.21480 of 2019 is filed by a student, seeking direction to the University to permit the petitioner to complete the B.Ed course in the college in question, in the interest of justice.
9. The University has filed separate statements in the writ petitions filed by the Manager, basically contending that, as per Sec.58 of Act, 1985, a college or a new course in a college shall be affiliated to the University by duly submitting application in the manner prescribed in Chapter 23 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 (for short, 'the Statutes, 1997'). Therefore, an Autonomous College is bound to seek affiliation of a new course as per the provisions of Chapter 23 of Statutes, 1997. Therefore, the new programmes started by the college cannot be sustained under law. It is also submitted that, Sec.118 of the Act operates only in a limited area and that is not dealing with the starting of a fresh programme, and therefore, the claims raised by the petitioner on the basis of the deeming provision cannot be sustained under law. It is further submitted that, taking into account the best interest of the students, the W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 10 University has decided to regularize the admissions made, however, it is only just and proper that the college is imposed with sufficient fine for not having started the courses without the approval of the University.
10. I have heard Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Manager of the College, Sri. Georgekutty Mathew, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21480 of 2019, and Sri. Asok M. Cherian, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
11. The paramount contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel is relying upon Sec.107 of Act, 1985, as amended as per the Ordinance, 2014, which deals with the Academic Council of an Autonomous College. The Academic Council consists of the Principal, all Heads of Departments in the College, four teachers representing different Departments, four experts from outside the college representing various curriculum, three nominees of the University who are academic experts not below the rank of an Associate Professor, one member from among the teachers of the college, W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 11 nominated by the Principal, who shall be the Member Secretary of the Academic Council.
12. Section 108 deals with the functions of the Academic Council which opens with a non-obstante clause that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Academic Council of an Autonomous College shall have the powers and functions enumerated thereunder. Power is conferred with the Academic Council to scrutinize the proposals of Boards of Studies of an Autonomous College, with regard to the courses of study, academic regulations, curricula, syllabi and modifications thereof, instructional and evaluation arrangements, methods, procedures relevant thereto and to approve the same with or without modifications. The proviso thereto prescribes that, if the Academic Council of an Autonomous College differs on any proposal submitted by any Board of Studies of the Autonomous College, it may either reject the proposal giving reasons for the same, or return the same to the Board of Studies of the Autonomous College with its remarks, for re-consideration. However, the second proviso thereto stipulates that, if the proposal is returned and the Board of Studies re-submits the W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 12 proposal to the Academic Council of the college with or without the proposed modifications, the Academic Council shall approve the proposal. Clause (v) thereunder enables the Academic Council to recommend to the Governing Council, any proposal for institution of new programmes of study. Other powers are also conferred on the Academic Council.
13. The Board of Studies of an Autonomous College is also consisting of various members, experts in the field, teachers, one expert nominated by the Vice- Chancellor from a panel of six experts recommended by the Principal and other members. As per Sec.110 of the Act, 1985, the Board of Studies is vested with powers to prepare curriculum for various academic programmes keeping in view the objectives of the college, interest of the stakeholders and national requirement, with the approval of the Academic Council of the Autonomous College. However, the proviso stipulates that, the Board of Studies of the Autonomous College shall ensure that the proposal for the academic programme conforms substantially to the duration, number of credits, evaluation and grading system prescribed, if any, by the University for that academic programme. The W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 13 proviso thereto makes it clear that, the Board of Studies of the Autonomous College shall ensure that the proposal will not have the effect of lowering the academic standards prescribed by the University. Other powers are also conferred on the Board of Studies.
14. So also, a Governing Council is also to be constituted with various members including experts and nominee of the University. The Governing Council is vested with powers under Sec.114 of the Act to approve and submit to the University, the institution of new programmes of study leading to the award of degrees and diplomas, among other powers. Methodologies are prescribed for conduct of examinations and for the award of degrees. Section 117 deals with Award of Degrees, which states that, the University shall award degrees, diplomas, titles, certificates and other academic distinctions to the students evaluated and recommended by an Autonomous College after levying a reasonable fee as may be prescribed by the University for the same, and the proviso thereto stipulates that, such degree, diploma, title or certificates shall be in a common format prescribed by the University. The second proviso thereto further states that the name of W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 14 an Autonomous College shall be mentioned in the Certificate conferring the degree, diploma, title, certificate and other academic distinctions, if such college requests for the same. Sub-section (2) thereto encompasses a duty on the University to issue the degree, diploma, title or certificates within forty- five working days of the receipt of the recommendations from an Autonomous College.
15. In my considered view, the provisions of Sec.118 of the Act, 1985 dealing with powers of the University over Autonomous Colleges is to be considered keeping in view the aforesaid background provisions. Section 118(1) to (3) of Act, 1985 are relevant to the context, which read thus:
"118. Powers of University over Autonomous Colleges:-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter and the provisions of the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, Bye- laws and Rules made thereunder, the University shall have all other powers over the Autonomous Colleges as are applicable to any affiliated college of the University under this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and the Regulations made thereunder.
(2) Where the Governing Council of an Autonomous College has approved and recommended any academic programme to the University, the Vice-Chancellor shall cause the proposal to be placed before the relevant Board of Studies of W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 15 the University:
Provided that where there is no Board of Studies with respect to the academic programme proposed, the University shall constitute a Board of Studies or an Expert Committee for the purpose:
Provided further that the Expert
Committee so appointed shall have
adequate number of members to
facilitate a fair and objective
assessment of the Academic Programme submitted to the University.
(3) The Board of Studies or the Expert Committee, as the case may be, shall, within thirty working days from the date of receipt of the proposal, consider it for the Academic Programme referred to in sub-section (2) and approve, reject or return the same, with remarks, to the Vice-Chancellor:
Provided that such rejection shall be on the ground that the proposal received from the Governing Council of an Autonomous College does not conform to the duration, number of credits, evaluation and grading system for that Academic Programme already prescribed by the University or where the Board of Studies or Expert Committee feels, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the proposal of the Governing Council of an Autonomous College will have the effect of lowering academic standards:
Provided further that where the Autonomous College which submitted the proposal has not been informed of the decision within thirty working days from the date of submission of the proposal to the University, the proposal shall be deemed to have been approved by the University.
x x x x x x x x x
W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 &
21480/19 16
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x".
16. Relying upon the said provisions, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, if the University has not granted the approval within thirty days after completing the formalities contemplated under the said provision, as is prescribed under sub-section (3) above, then, in accordance with the second proviso thereto, the proposal shall be deemed to have been approved by the University. The said question was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22824 of 2016 and has rendered Ext.P11 judgment dated 29.07.2016, and after elaborate consideration of these provisions, it was held that, if the application for approval is not rejected within thirty days, it shall be deemed to have been approved by the University.
17. Even though the University has preferred W.A.No.1708 of 2016 against the said judgment, it was withdrawn, evident from Ext.P13 judgment dated 08.09.2016. Thereafter the University has filed R.P.No.941 of 2016, which was also dismissed as per Ext.P12 order dated 25.11.2016.
W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 17
18. However, learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that, in view of Chapter 23 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, dealing with affiliation of colleges, application for affiliation of a college or for affiliation in additional subjects shall be addressed to the Registrar and shall be forwarded to him not later than 31st of January preceding the academic year in which the courses are proposed to be started, and on receipt of the application, the University is vested with ample powers to consider the same in accordance with law taking into account the infrastructure and other aspects and is at liberty to either grant affiliation or reject the same. However, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, Chapter 23 of the Statutes, 1997 deals with affiliation of Colleges, and that has nothing to do with additional batches and new academic programmes sought for by an autonomous college.
19. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar, and I am of the considered opinion that, Chapter-IX introduced into the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 as per the Ordinance, 2014 is a self-contained one incorporated to deal with the W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 18 Autonomous Colleges. The provisions contained thereunder and discussed above, deal with the nature of autonomy enjoyed by such colleges on getting the grant of autonomy. The Autonomous Colleges are having its own infrastructure so as to deal with the situations constituting Academic Council, Boards of Studies, Governing Council etc. etc. with sufficient and required members, including the representatives of the University nominated by the Vice-Chancellor etc.
20. So also, it is clear from Chapter 23 of the Statutes, 1997 that the said Chapter deals with affiliation of Colleges under other circumstances, and has nothing to do with the additional batches and new programmes to be started. It is also clear from sub- section (2) of Sec.118 that the Governing Council of an Autonomous College once approved and recommended any academic programme to the University, the Vice- Chancellor is duty bound to place the proposal before the relevant Board of Studies of the University and the Board of Studies or the Expert Committee is vested with powers to facilitate a fair and objective assessment of the Academic Programme submitted to the University. The Board of Studies or the Expert Committee, as the W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 19 case may be, is to take a decision within thirty days from the date of receipt of the proposal, after considering the Academic Programme, to approve, reject or return the same, with remarks, to the Vice- Chancellor. However, the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) makes it clear that, such rejection shall be only on the ground that, the proposal received from the Governing Council of an Autonomous College does not conform to the duration, number of credits, evaluation and grading system for that Academic Programme already prescribed by the University or where the Board of Studies or Expert Committee feels that, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the proposal of the Governing Council of an Autonomous College will have the effect of lowering academic standards.
21. As is discussed above, the requirements of the 2nd proviso are also taken care of under other provisions of Chapter-IX of the University Act, 1985. Therefore, it is clear that, the Governing Council or the Board of Studies or the Expert Committee will only have the operational limits within the precincts of Chapter-IX of Act, 1985. It is also clear from the provisions contained under Chapter-IX that it is with W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 20 the intention of providing autonomy to the Colleges that such stipulations are made under the provisions of the Act. At the same time, the University is vested with powers for exercising control over the functionaries of the Autonomous College by nominating its representatives, and also ensuring that the academic standards are not lowered, and the Academic Council and other bodies of the Autonomous Colleges are not unduly interfering with the standards prescribed by the University in various programmes already started.
22. Now, on an analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no case for the University that the application was rejected after consideration of the Academic Council or other authorities within thirty days after completion of the procedural formalities contemplated under Sec.118(3) of Act, 1985. Moreover, the University could not establish any case that the College has lowered the academic standards or has intervened with the set prescriptions of the University in any manner.
23. On a reading of Ext.P14 order passed by the University, regularizing the admissions made by the college and imposing a fine of Rs.5 lakhs, it is clear W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 21 that, fine is imposed only for not securing prior approval of the University. However, I could not locate any provision under the University Act or any other law empowering the University to impose fine. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, the College is entitled to succeed in the writ petitions filed by it, and I hold that an Autonomous College is vested with ample powers to regulate its programmes and place it for approval subject to the methodologies contained under Chapter-IX of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, and after completing the procedures as contemplated under Sec.118, if the application is not rejected within thirty working days, the College is entitled to get the deemed approval in contemplation of the 2nd proviso to Sec.118(3) of Act, 1985.
24. Therefore, I am in respectful agreement with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge specified above, and in that view of the matter, there is no requirement for referring the matter for consideration of a bench with superior strength, as is sought for by learned Standing Counsel for the University. Before I part with the judgment, it is made W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 22 clear that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is a judgment in rem, binding on all, and therefore, the approach of the University in its communication dated 12.06.2017 that the findings in the judgment secured by another college is not applicable to the petitioner is in stark contradiction with the principles evolved in the justice delivery system. Therefore, the fine imposed in Ext.P14 order of the University in W.P.(C) No.28164 of 2019 is herewith quashed and all the writ petitions will stand allowed.
I am also informed that during the pendency of these writ petitions, by providing Bank guarantee, provisional degree certificates were issued by the University. Therefore, there will be a direction to the University to issue the degree certificates to the students in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and also to return the bank guarantee within the period specified above.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE St/-03.12.2019 W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 23 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20279/2017 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.5.2016 FROM THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 28.3.2017 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 28.3.2017 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 28.4.2017 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 28.4.2017 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 28.4.2017 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.4.2017 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER -DO- EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.5.2017 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7.6.2017 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.6.2017 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.7.2016 IN WP(C)NO.22824/2016 OF THIS HON. COURT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2016 IN RP 941/2016 OF THIS HON.COURT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.9.2016 IN WA.1708/2016 OF THIS HON.COURT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SCHEME FOR AUTONOMOUS COLLEGES.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 24 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28164/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7.6.2017 TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.6.2017 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.7.2016 IN WPC NO.22824/2016 OF THIS HON. COURT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2016 IN R.P.941/2016 OF THIS HON. COURT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.9.2016 IN WA.1708/2016 OF THIS HON. COURT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SCHEME FOR AUTONOMOUS COLLEGES.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.8.2017 ISSUED FROM THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.5.2018 ISSUED TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2018 ISSUED FROM THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 12.2.2018 OF THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.8.2019 TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.10.2019 FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2019 ISSUED FROM THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED IN WPC NO.20279/2017 BY THE STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.
W.P.(C)Nos.20279/17, 28164/19 & 21480/19 25 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21480/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 02.07.2019 SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF 1ST SEMESTER FEES REMITTANCE OF FEE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE B.COM DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 09/10/2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL