Kerala High Court
The Principal, S.H. College vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 21 November, 2024
1
W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 29493 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
THE PRINCIPAL, S.H. COLLEGE,
THEVARA, COCHIN-682013.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.
2 VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.
3 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
KOTTAYAM-686560.
BY SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
BY ADV SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).34658/2017, 34814/2017, THE COURT ON 21.11.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO.34658 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGER, ST.BERCHMANS COLLEGE,
CHANGANASSERY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.
2 VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560
3 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
KOTTAYAM-686560
BY SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).29493/2017 AND CONNECTED CASE, THE COURT ON
21.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34814 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
THE PRINCIPAL, ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE,
ERNAKULAM-682011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
KOTTAYAM-686560.
2 VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.
3 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
KOTTAYAM-686560.
BY SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
BY ADV SHRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).29493/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
21.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.29493/2017, 34658/2017 and 34814/2017] These connected writ petitions are filed by the Principals of Aided Colleges affiliated with the 1st respondent University which have been granted Academic Autonomy by the University Grants Commission (UGC) as well as the University, challenging the insistence by the 1st respondent University to remit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs each as a condition for issue of the degree certificates as against various courses conducted by the Colleges upon conferment of autonomy as above.
2. The short facts as culled out from W.P.(C) No.29493 of 2017 are as under:
The petitioner is stated to be the Principal of S.H. College, Thevara, which was started in 1944. The College was granted autonomous status by UGC pursuant to Ext.P1 communication addressed to the Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi University dated 19.06.2014. In tune with Ext.P1, the University also issued Ext.P2 order dated 23.07.2014, permitting the petitioner as well 5 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 as three other Colleges to start the admission process in tune with the autonomy granted. The petitioner, on the basis of the autonomy so obtained, started various courses from the academic year 2014-2015 onwards, and the academic council of the College had also framed a "Manual of Examinations" and forwarded the same to the 1st respondent University on 08.10.2014 for its "remarks". It is stated that though under the statute, the University was to offer their remarks on the Manual so forwarded within 60 days' time, the University kept silent and ultimately by Ext.P6 dated 10.05.2017, approved the Manual of Examinations forwarded as above. In the meantime, the petitioner had admitted students and had also conducted the courses in tune with the Manual of Examinations framed as above and upon declaration of the results of the 1st batch of the post-graduate students, the same was forwarded to the respondent University through Ext.P7 letter dated 29.08.2016, requesting the University to issue degree certificates. However, 6 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 the 1st respondent University sought for certain clarifications, and they were also forwarded by the petitioner. But, the 1st respondent University, by Ext.P15 order dated 25.07.2017, concluded that the petitioner had announced results by following the "marks system" as against the "direct grading system," which was being followed by the University, and, therefore, there is violation of certain provisions of the statute.
Hence, it was decided to insist on a fresh mark list by following the "direct grading system". Upon receipt of Ext.P15 order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P16 letter dated 27.07.2017, pointing out that the grading system that was being followed by the University has no relevance subsequent to the approval of the Examination Manual as stated earlier. The University, thereafter, issued a circular at Ext.P17 dated 10.08.2017, laying down certain pre-conditions for the purpose of issuance of the degree certificates. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted Ext.P18, forwarding the details of the students admitted during 7 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 2014-16 and 2015-2017, again requesting the University to issue the degree certificates. Insofar as the degree certificates were not being issued even thereafter, the petitioner was before this Court, and by Ext.P20 judgment dated 09.08.2017, this Court directed the University to issue necessary orders. The respondent University, in turn, issued Ext.P21, alleging that there were irregularities in the matter of grading and ultimately deciding to issue the degree certificates for the undergraduate/postgraduate courses on condition the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards fine. It is challenging the afore order at Ext.P21, insisting on payment of a fine as a pre-condition for the issue of the degree certificates that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petitions.
3. While admitting these writ petitions, this Court recorded the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that they are ready and willing to remit Rs.10 lakhs "under protest." On that basis, Rs.10 lakhs have been deposited, and the degree 8 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 certificates have also been issued by the respondent University.
4. The respondent University has filed a detailed statement dated 25.10.2024, seeking to sustain the impugned order.
5. I have heard the learned senior counsel, Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions as well as Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. Sri.Kannanthanam, the learned senior counsel, contends that:
i. The Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), entitles the petitioners herein to have an "evaluation method" independent of that being followed by the University, as is clear from the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Act.
ii. The petitioners have, in tune with the afore, prepared the evaluation methods, forming part of the "Manual of Examinations," and they were also forwarded to the 9 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 University for approval as laid down under Section 116 of the Act.
iii. He invites the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 117(17) of the Act and contends that once such a Manual of Examinations is forwarded to the University, the University is to offer its "remarks" within 60 working days of such submission and once the remarks are so offered, the autonomous college concerned is to incorporate the necessary modifications as suggested by the University in the Manual prepared by them. However, he points out that the respondent University did not offer any "remarks" and instead slept over the Manual submitted by the petitioner during 2014 (in relation to S.H. College, Thevara) and came out with Ext.P6 order dated 10.05.2017(in relation to S.H. College, Thevara), approving the Manual of Examination.10
W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 iv. On the basis of Ext.P6, he further points out that the petitioners conducted the course and carried out the evaluation after the examinations, and the results were also forwarded to the University for the purpose of issuing the degree certificates.
v. Therefore, he contends with reference to the provisions of Section 117(2) of the Act that the University had no other way than to issue the degree certificates within the period prescribed therein (45 days). vi. In the light of the afore, he submits that the University cannot be heard to contend that the grading system followed by the petitioners was different from that being followed by the University, and hence, the degree certificates cannot be issued.
vii. Without prejudice, he also contends that there are no provisions under which the respondent University can demand fine from the petitioners.
11W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
7. Per contra, Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University after making reference to the averments contained in the statement filed as above contends that:
i. The petitioners have undertaken to follow the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations, as also the directions issued by the University from time to time. In view of the afore undertaking, he submits that the petitioners are not justified in taking a different evaluation method than the one followed by the respondent University.
ii. With reference to the findings in Ext.P20 judgment, the earlier round of litigation, he submits that the contentions raised by the petitioners are not to be accepted. He relies on the provisions of Section 108 of the Act as also 110 of the Act and contends that the academic programs of the petitioners are to be on par 12 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 with the duration/number of credits/evaluation/grading system prescribed by the University.
iii. In light of the above, he points out that the Manual of Examination framed by the petitioners was substantially varying with the norms that were being followed by the University, and therefore, the impugned orders were perfectly justifiable.
iv. He relies on Ext.R1(b) order dated 08.05.2018 produced along with W.P(C) No.24565 of 2019 (not part of the present batch) and contends that the petitioners herein were cautioned with respect to the requirement for following the grading etc. being followed by the University. Therefore, the petitioners are not justified in contending otherwise.
v. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K.Mohammed Kunhi [(1969) 71 ITR 815] and contends that the 13 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 respondent University had inherent power to issue orders in the nature of those challenged herein. vi. He also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology [(2021) 2 SCC 564] and the judgment of this Court in Babusha N (Dr.) v. Sree Narayana Health Care Society [2024 (3) KHC 249], in support of the afore contentions.
8. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.
9. The following questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions:
i. Is the respondent University justified in contending that the evaluation method followed by the petitioners violates the provisions of the Act, especially when the Examination Manual was approved by them? 14 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 ii. If the answer to the afore question is in the affirmative, is the University having any power to impose fine on the petitioners?
10. As regards the first issue arising for consideration, I notice that Ext.P21 order issued by the respondent University is seeking to demand a fine of Rs.10 lakhs on the basis of a decision dated 31.08.2017 of the Syndicate. The decision of the Syndicate has been extracted in the latter portion of Ext.P21. A reading of the said latter portion of Ext.P21, would show that the allegation against the petitioners is to the effect that they have effected changes in the Regulation/Scheme with reference to the provisions of Section 110 of the Act and issued the results/mark lists to the students. Section 110 of the Act reads as under:
"110. Powers and functions of Board of Studies of an Autonomous College:- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a Board of Studies of an Autonomous College shall have the following powers and functions, namely:--15
W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
(i) 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:
Provided 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:
Provided further 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."
(underlining supplied) It is true that the first proviso referred to above makes it obligatory for the Board of Studies of the Autonomous College to ensure that the proposal for the academic programmes conforms substantially to the evaluation and grading system prescribed by the University. At first blush, it may appear that if the scheme/regulation framed by the petitioners is not in conformity with the grading system followed by the University, 16 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 the petitioners are at fault.
11. However, the provisions of Section 110 of the Act and the proviso referred to above have to be read along with various other provisions of the statute under Chapter IX thereto. Chapter IX provides for "Autonomous Colleges". Section 106 thereunder provides for the authorities of an Autonomous College so as to include the Academic Council, the Board of Studies, and the Governing Council. The constitution of the Academic Council is prescribed under Section 107 and the powers and functions of the said Council of an Autonomous College are laid down under Section 108. Under Section 108, the Academic Council is to scrutinize the proposals of the "Board of Studies" with regard to the courses of study, academic regulations, curricula, syllabi, instructional and evaluation arrangements, methods, and procedures relevant thereto and thereafter to approve the same with or without modifications. The constitution of the "Board of Studies" of an Autonomous 17 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 College is prescribed under Section 109, and it is thereafter, the powers and functions of the said Board of Studies, already extracted, are prescribed under Section 110. A reading of Section 110, as noticed above, requires the Board of Studies to prepare curriculum for various academic programmes ensuring that the same conforms to the duration, number of credits, evaluation and grading system prescribed, etc. by the University "substantially." Thus, the statute does not lay down that the Board of Studies of the Autonomous College have to copy the "evaluation and grading system" being followed by the University. The fact that the Board of Studies need not follow the same yardsticks fixed by the University is clear from the definition of the term "Academic Autonomy" under Section 2(1) which reads as under:
""Academic Autonomy" means a privilege of a college or University Department to conduct academic programmes, develop syllabus for the respective subjects, devise teaching, learning and evaluation methods, conduct examinations leading to the award of a degree, diploma, certificate and 18 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 such other titles and distinctions by the University and publication of results in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, byelaws and the rules made thereunder."
(Underlining supplied) A reading of the above shows that the autonomous colleges are conferred with the "privilege" to devise "evaluation methods"
independent of that framed by the University.
12. The method of conduct of examinations is prescribed under Section 116 of the Act. The provisions of Section 116 read as under:
"116. Conduct of examinations.-- (1) The Government in the case of Government Autonomous College and the Principal in the case of Autonomous Colleges which are not Government Colleges shall appoint a person not below the rank of an Associate Professor, with experience of not less than two years in a Department offering Post Graduate Course of study in a Government College or a college other than an Un-aided College, as the Controller of Examinations for the Autonomous College:
Provided that such a person shall not have been disqualified or punished for any breach of conduct or failure to perform any duty assigned in connection with the conduct of examinations by the University or any other Universities.19 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 (2) All examinations leading to the award of degree or diploma issued by the University shall be conducted under the supervision of the Controller of Examinations. (3) The Academic Council of an Autonomous College shall frame a Manual of Examinations for the conduct of examinations in the Autonomous College within three months from the grant of autonomy or six months before the conduct of the first set of examinations, whichever is earlier. (4) The Manual of Examinations shall be based on the following matters, namely:--
(a) the functions of conducting examinations and its supervision, evaluation of examinations and publication of results shall be specifically assigned to persons designated for the purpose and their roles shall also be specified;
(b) the independence of framing of questions, valuation and monitoring processes shall be maintained;
(c) there shall be adequate safeguards to ensure the integrity of the examination processes; and
(d) there shall be adequate penalties of such nature and subject to such maximum penalty as may be prescribed by the Government, that may be provided for any individual responsible for the conduct of examinations in case of any breach of the provisions of the Manual of Examinations:
Provided that in framing the Manual of Examinations, an Autonomous College shall ensure that the safeguards in the 20 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 Examination Manual of the University itself are mutatis mutandis incorporated in the Manual of Examinations for the conduct of examinations of the Autonomous College:
Provided further that the Manual of Examinations shall be submitted by an Autonomous College to the University for its remarks and modifications for improving the quality of the process of examinations and upon receiving such remarks, incorporate them in the Manual of Examinations to the extent possible and inform the University of the reasons for not being able to comply with any of the suggestions. (5) The Manual of Examinations shall contain specific provisions for the redressal of grievances of students relating to examinations and assessments in conformity with the relevant regulations made and guidelines issued from time to time by the University and the University Grants Commission. (6) On approval of the issue of the marklists by the Governing Council, the mark list shall be issued under the names and seal of the Principal of the Autonomous College and the Controller of Examinations of the Autonomous College, in a format consistent with that prescribed by the University."
Thus, the Academic Council of the Autonomous College is to frame the "Manual of Examinations" under sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the Act within three months from the grant of autonomy or six months before the conduct of the first set of 21 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 examinations whichever is earlier. The proviso to sub-section (4) also states that the Colleges are to ensure that the safeguards in the Manual of Examinations of the University are mutatis mutandis incorporated in the Manual of Examinations framed by the Autonomous College. The second proviso to sub- section (4), further lays down that the Autonomous College is to submit the Manual of Examinations to the University for its "remarks" and modifications and upon receipt of the "remarks", incorporate them in the Manual of Examinations "to the extent possible" and inform the University of the reasons for not being able to comply with any of the suggestions from the side of the University. Thus, even under the second proviso referred to above, the Autonomous College is only to incorporate the remarks, "to the extent possible".
13. The power of the University to offer "remarks," as above, is to be read along with provisions of Section 118, which prescribes the extent of power the University has over the 22 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 Autonomous College. Sub-section (17) to Section 118 reads as under:
"(17) Each Autonomous College shall submit a Manual of Examinations to the University within six months before the date of the first set of examinations that it proposes to conduct in the college and the University shall offer its remarks on the Manual within sixty working days of such submission. The remarks of the University shall be offered with the object of improving the safeguards in the conduct of the examinations and for ensuring the integrity of the examinations conducted by an Autonomous College. The Autonomous College shall incorporate all the necessary modifications consistent with the remarks of the University, in the Manual."
The afore sub-section (17) requires to be read along with the provisions of Section 116(3) and (4) and the second proviso thereunder. As noted above, the "remarks" on the Manual of Examinations have to be offered by the University to the Autonomous College within "60 working days" of its submission. Upon such remarks being offered, it is for the college to incorporate the necessary modifications as suggested by the University in the Manual.
23W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
14. But in the case at hand, though the petitioners have submitted the Manual of Examinations during 2014 itself, no remarks were offered by the University. Ultimately, by Ext.P6 order dated 10.05.2017, the Manual of Examinations is seen approved by the syndicate, as far as the petitioner in W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 is concerned. As regards the balance two cases, approval is granted by the order dated 21.02.2017, issued by the University produced as Ext.P18 in W.P(C) No.34814 of 2017 and Ext.P8 in W.P(C) No.34658 of 2017. It is also to be noted that the Act does not provide for any approval of the Manual. Only remarks can be offered. However, the University chose to offer no remarks and approve the Manual, which can only be taken as a conscious act from the side of the University.
15. When that be so, the respondent University cannot be heard to say that there is violation with reference to the provisions of Section 110 of the Act. Such a stand can be taken 24 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 only when the Manual of Examinations was either not approved or modifications proposed through "remarks" offered by the University. In the case at hand, there is no such remarks seen offered by the respondent University. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent University may not be justified in proceeding against the petitioners with reference to the alleged violation of the provisions under Section 110.
16. At this juncture, the contention raised by Sri.Surin George Ipe, with reference to the findings in Ext.P20 judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, is to be considered. According to him, by virtue of the afore judgment, the University is justified in proceeding against the petitioners with reference to the violation of Section 110 of the Act. But I notice that the afore judgment was passed, in a writ petition filed, pointing out that the respondent University is refusing to issue degree certificates to the students. It is true that the respondent University has pointed out the alleged violation with reference 25 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 to the provisions of Section 110 of the Act. However, ultimately, this Court directed the respondent University to consider the requisitions made by the petitioners in accordance with law, leaving open various questions of facts/law raised in the writ petitions. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the judgment at Ext.P20 is not concluding issue against the petitioners.
17. The judgments cited by Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned Standing Counsel, are now to be referred to. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in lncome Tax Officer (supra). The Apex Court, in the afore judgment, laid down that when an Act permits an authority to do certain things, it goes without saying that the said authority is also having implied authority for doing all such acts that are essentially necessary for the proper execution of the statutory power. But the afore judgment may not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, since as already noticed, the respondent 26 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017 and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 University was not justified in proceeding against the petitioners after having approved the Manual of Examinations. The judgment in Babusha N.(supra) may also not be apposite to the case at hand for the very same reason. The judgment of the Apex Court in APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (supra), relied on by the learned Standing Counsel, is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, since the afore judgment considered the power of the University to prescribe enhanced norms. But in the case at hand, as already found, insofar as the University has approved the programmes presented by the petitioners, there cannot be any deviation therefrom.
18. Thus, this Court holds that the respondent University cannot contend that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Section 110 of the Act. In view of the afore finding, the second question framed at paragraph 9 does not arise for consideration.
27W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. In such circumstances, these writ petitions would stand allowed as under:
i. The impugned orders, to the extent of imposing a fine on the petitioners as a condition for the issue of degree certificates, are set aside.
ii. The respondent University to refund the fine collected pursuant to the impugned orders to the petitioners herein within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
ln
28
W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34658/2017
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.06.2014
ISSUED BY THE U.G.C.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2014 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR AUTONOMOUS
COLLEGE DURING THE XII PLAN PERIOD (2012-17). EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 18.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.05.2015 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2017 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.09.2017 TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2017 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
29W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34814/2017
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-6-2014
ISSUED BY THE U.G.C.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-7-2014 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR AUTONOMOUS
COLLEGES DURING THE XII PLAN PERIOD (2012-
17).
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-8-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 18-8-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-11-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-3-2015 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-6-2015 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-7-2015 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-8-2015 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-3-2016 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-5-2016 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-5-2016 OF -DO- 30 W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-5-2016 OF -DO-
EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-2-2017 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8-6-2016 TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-8-2016 TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-2-2017 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 23-8-2017
FROM THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-9-2017 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-10-2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P22 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-10-2017 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
31
W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29493/2017
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19/06/2014 FROM THE U.G.C. TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/07/2014 OF
THE M.G.UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR AUTONOMOUS
COLLEGES DURING THE XII PLAN PERIOD 2012- 2017.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/08/2014 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY IN THE COLLEGES.
EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/05/2017 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7- TRUE C0PY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 29/08/2016 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/11/2016 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/11/2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 30/12/2016 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/01/2017 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/03/2017 TO THE PETITIONER.
32W.P(C) No.29493 of 2017
and conn.cases 2024:KER:87017 EXHIBIT P13- TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
10/03/2017 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/05/2017 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/07/2017 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/07/2017 FROM THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P17- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 10/08/2017 ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18- TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 26/08/2017 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 08/09/2017 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P20- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/08/2017 IN W.P.(C)N0.19704/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P21- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/09/2017 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.