Madras High Court
S.Gowtham vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 August, 2012
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29/08/2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.15063 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2012
S.Gowtham .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented the Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariate,
Chennai.
2.Anna University Madurai,
Represented by its Registrar,
Old Kamarajar University
Evening College Building,
Alagar Koil Road,
Madurai - 625 002.
3.The Principal,
Christian College of Engineering
and Technology,
Oddanchatram,
Dindigul District.
4.Anna University,
Represented by its Registrar,
Guindy,
Chennai - 25.
(R4 impleaded as party respondent vide
Court order dated 20.04.2012 in
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2012) .. Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
representation of his sponsorer dated 12.09.2010 and permit the petitioner to
continue his BE Computer Science Engineering degree course under the 3rd
respondent college under the Non Resident Indian Quota by accepting the
sponsorship of Mr.Manimaran Sethuraman without insisting the production of
legally declared Guardianship under the provisions of Guardian and Wards Act
1890.
!For petitioner ... Mr.K.Muraleedharan
^For R-1 ... Mr.Mohammed Mohideen,
Addl. Government Pleader.
For R - 2&R - 4 ... Mr.M.Rajarajan,
Standing Counsel for
Anna University
For R - 3 ... Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvan
:ORDER
The petitioner, has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 12.09.2010 and permitting him to continue his BE Computer Science Engineering degree course in the Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District under Non Resident Indian Quota, by accepting the sponsorship of Mr.Manimaran Sethuraman without insisting the production of Guardian certificate.
2. Record of proceeding shows that by an order made in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2012, dated 20.04.2012, Anna University represented by its Registrar, Chennai has been impleaded, as 4th respondent in this writ petition.
3. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Backward Community. His aim was to become an Engineer. However, he was constrained to join B.Sc Course in American College, Madurai. The petitioner's paternal uncle Mr.Manimaran Sethuraman, who is working in California, United states of America as Programmer Analyst has come forward to financially assist the petitioner to undergo Engineering studies. He had sponsored for the admission of the petitioner to Engineering Course in the third respondent college. Therefore, the petitioner has discontinued B.Sc Course from American College, Madurai. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District for admission to B.E.-Computer Science Engineering (CSE). The petitioner has submitted an application along with the necessary certificates. The third respondent allotted a seat in the B.E.-Computer Science Engineering (CSE) under Non-Resident Indian quota. His sponsorship letter from his paternal uncle was also produced.
4.The said sponsorer issued a Bank of America's cheque for value of 1000 dollars, dated 17.06.2012 and submitted all the documents such as, sponsorship Letter, Employer Letter, Embassy Letter, Non Resident External (NRE) Bank Account Statement, Evidence for the payment of development charges of US dollars 1000, copy of valid Indian Passport of Sponsorship and Nativity certificate Certificate of sponsorship to the Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul District, the third respondent college.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that after verifying all the required particulars, the third respondent college admitted the petitioner to B.E.-Computer Science Engineering (CSE) and that the petitioner had been attending the classes regularly and that a fee of Rs.74,800/-for the academic year 2010-2011 was also paid.
6. That being the position, on 09.09.2010, the third respondent college informed the petitioner to produce the Guardianship Certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner consulted a lawyer, who opined that under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act 1890, minors alone have to get Guardianship from the Court of law. According to the petitioner, even at the time of admission, he was a major. Therefore, he submitted that there is no necessity to produce such a certificate. Subsequently, on 19.11.2010, the third respondent college insisted the petitioner for production of the said certificate and informed him that Anna University, Madurai, the second respondent herein did not accept the admission of the petitioner under Non Resident Indian Quota. Further, from 22.11.2010, the third respondent college did not permit the petitioner to attend the classes.
7. The petitioner has contended that he had 75% attendance and hence, he was eligible to write the examinations schedule from 03.01.2011. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has sought for the relief as stated supra.
8. Record of proceedings shows that by the orders of this Court made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 dated 29.12.2010, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 dated 28.04.2011, M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 dated 19.05.2011, M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011 dated 12.11.2011 and M.P.3 of 2012 dated 23.04.2012, the petitioner has been permitted to write the first to fourth semester examinations. In M.P.(MD)No.4 of 2012, the petitioner has sought for an interim direction, to direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to attend III and IV year classes and the semester examination, both practical and theoretical examinations, till the completion of B.E degree course.
9. Record of proceedings shows that periodically, interim applications had been taken out for directions to permit the petitioner to undergo B.E.-Computer Science Engineering (CSE). In the light of the decision made by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.8167 of 2009 (etc batch cases), dated 26.11.2010, wherein, certain directions have been issued by a learned single Judge of this Court and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education (JI) Department, dated 02.06.2009, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the main writ petition itself.
10. Opposing the relief sought for in the writ petition, the Principal, Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul District, has filed a counter affidavit.
11. Yesterday, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the third respondent college submitted that the petitioner was not admitted to the College, but he was only permitted to attend the classes, on condition, to produce the Guardianship Certificate as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education (JI) Department dated 02.06.2009.
12. Today also, the learned counsel for the third respondent College, reiterated that the petitioner was not at all admitted to the College. But, the Court requested the learned counsel for the college to offer his explanation to the contents of the application sent by Christians College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul District to Anna University, Madurai, wherein, the Principal of the said College, after going through the contents of the application form submitted by the petitioner, had counter signed by the Principal, wherein, the Principal has certified that;
"1. The date given above are verified with originals and found correct
2. The course for which admission is sought for is approved by the AICTE and affiliation is accorded by Anna University of Technology, Madurai, Madurai - 625 002.
3. The candidate is admitted to the respective course within the permissible intake under the category concerned as prescribed by the Government.
When the learned counsel for the third respondent was confronted with the abovesaid certificate, dated 02.11.2010, issued by the Principal of the College, he submitted that he was not fully prepared to argue the main writ petition and sought for time. Today, taking bolt from the blue, learned counsel for the third respondent college submitted that the Principal of the third respondent College joined duty only on 04.06.2010 and as the application for approval of admission has to be forwarded to Anna University Madurai, entries were made in the application form submitted by the petitioner, without proper verification by the Principal.
13. Learned counsel for the third respondent college submitted that the Transfer Certificate was issued only on 09.11.2010 by the Principal of American College, Madurai and therefore, at that time, when the petitioner claims to have been admitted in the third respondent college, he was undergoing B.Sc computer science course in American College, Madurai and therefore, the petitioner was not admitted in the third respondent college, and according to him, the petitioner was only allowed to attend classes on condition that necessary fees would be collected lateron, and that the admission would be confirmed only after the production of original certificates, which includes certificate of Guardianship, as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Higher Education (JI) Department dated 02.06.2009.
14. Learned counsel for the third respondent further submitted that the petitioner is a chronic absentee and that he had not produced the Guardianship Certificate, as required under G.O.Ms.No.162 Higher Education (JI) Department dated 02.06.2009 and that therefore, the question of admitting the student in B.E computer science course does not arise.
15. Learned counsel for the third respondent denied the contention of receipt of 1000 dollars under the head of developmental charges from the sponsorer Mr.Manimaran Sethuraman. He also stated that though the nominal fees of Rs.74,800/- was received, the petitioner had taken back a sum of Rs.22,280/-.
16. According to him, though interim directions have been granted by this Court periodically, the petitioner had not attended the classes and satisfied the required attendance and hence, has not written any of the examinations. According to the learned counsel for the third respondent college, the petitioner has sneaked into NRI quota, without producing Guardianship Certificate and hence, not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. The allegations levelled against the College that it has deliberately reduced the percentage of attendance and not permitted him to attend the classes has been denied.
17. On the question of applicability of the judgment made in W.P.(MD)Nos.8167 of 2009 etc. batch of writ petitions, dated 26.11.2010 to the facts of this case, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that in the above referred judgment, this Court has held that the Engineering colleges have collected huge amounts from NRI student and that they had committed an error in admitting the students, without obtaining required guardianship certificate and therefore, proceeded to fasten the liability on the institutions. According to the learned counsel for the third respondent college, except the nominal fee of Rs.74,800/-, the College has not collected any amount and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. He also submitted that the petitioner cannot claim approval of admission as per G.O.Ms.No.162 Higher Education (JI) Department, dated 02.06.2009 and that for the above reasons, the writ petition has to be dismissed.
18. When the matter was heard yesterday, Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Standing Counsel for the Anna University submitted that action against the college would be initiated for violation of G.O.Ms.No.162 Higher Education (JI) Department dated 02.06.2009 and in terms of the order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.8167 of 2009 etc. batch of writ petitions, dated 26.11.2010. Today, quiet contrary, learned counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner was not admitted in the institution. The said submission is placed on record.
19. Denying the contention of the third respondent college that the petitioner was never admitted to the institution and attended American College, Madurai till 08.11.2010, Mr.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner drew the attention of this Court to column No.5 of the Transfer Certificate issued by American College, Madurai and submitted that the student discontinued the course on 07.05.2010 itself and subsequently, joined B.E. Computer Science Engineering Course (CSE) in the third respondent college, but was not allowed to attend classes till he produced the Guardianship Certificate. He further submitted that merely because the Transfer Certificate issued by the American College was dated 09.11.2010, it cannot be construed that the petitioner continued in the said college. According to him, the contention of the third respondent college is far from truth and particulars mentioned by the Principal of Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul District and the certificate itself would prove that the petitioner was admitted to the course, and that the college has sought for approval of the petitioner's admission under NRI quota. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the decision made in W.P.(MD)Nos.8127 of 2009 etc., batch of writ petitions, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.
20. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
21. The main issue is as to whether the petitioner was admitted to B.E.-Computer Science Engineering (CSE) in the third respondent college. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined B.Sc computer science in American College, Madurai in the year 2009. Column No.5 of the transfer certificate, issued by American College, Madurai, makes it clear that the petitioner has discontinued the second year B.Sc. Computer Science course and left the college on 07.05.2010. Para No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the Principal of Christian college of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul District, states that she joined as Principal of the third respondent college on 04.06.2010. The petitioner came to the college in person on 20.05.2010 during the tenure of her predecessor and claimed admission to B.E. Computer Science under NRI quota. Further, she filled up the pro-forma meant for new entrants. While the petitioner was asked to produce the original certificates viz., +2 Mark Sheet, Transfer Certificate, Community Certificate, legally declared Guardianship Certificate, under the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890, he informed that he would produce the same, within a short span of time. He has paid a token advance of Rs.5000/-. Except, the legally declared Guardianship Certificate and Transfer Certificate, he has produced a xerox copy of +2 mark sheet. He was informed that admission would be confirmed only after the production of the aforesaid original certificates. It is also the case of the Principal that the petitioner has represented that it would take some more time for him to produce the original certificates insisted by the third respondent college. The Principal of the College has categorically admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was allowed to attend the classes from the beginning of the semester, i.e., from 18th August 2010, on condition that necessary fees would be collected and that admission would be confirmed only after the production of original certificates.
22. Though the third respondent college, has contended that the petitioner was not admitted to the course, in the application submitted by the college to Anna University, Madurai, a counter signature has been made by the Principal of the College, on 02.11.2010, which reads as follows:
"1. The date given above are verified with originals and found correct
2. The course for which admission is sought for is approved by the AICTE and affiliation is accorded by Anna University of Technology, Madurai, Madurai -625 002.
3. The candidate is admitted to the respective course within the permissible intake under the category concerned as prescribed by the Government.
23. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vice Principal, American College, Madurai in the Transfer Certificate dated 09.11.2010, has categorically stated that the petitioner had left the said college on 07.05.2010 itself. The Principal of the said college has certified that the petitioner had already discontinued the degree course from 07.05.2010.
24. When the Principal of Christian College, Dindigul District has filed an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was allowed to attend to the classes from the beginning of the semester, i.e. from 18th August 2010 on condition that necessary fees would be collected and that admission would be confirmed, only after the production of the original certificates, the arguments of the learned counsel for the the third respondent that the petitioner was pursuing two courses simultaneously,is unacceptable and such contentions have been purforth to deny the factum of admission.
25. The argument of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the petitioner was never admitted to the first year B.E. Computer Science Engineering (CSE) runs contrary to the pleadings made in the counter affidavit filed by the Principal of Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul District. The Principal herself in the application form forwarded to Anna University has categorically stated that admission of the petitioner to the respective course was within the permissible intake under the category concerned by the government and that the admission would be confirmed, only subject to the production of the document viz., the Guardianship Certificate. Reading of the counter affidavit also shows that when the third respondent college has sent an application form to the Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai along with certain certificates, the Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai has sent a communication, dated 10.11.2010 informing the college that the admission for approval cannot be granted.
26. From the pleadings and materials on record, it is abundantly clear that the third respondent college having admitted the petitioner to first year B.E.-Computer Science Engineering (CSE) course and forwarded an application form for Provisional Eligibility Certificate duly certifying that the petitioner was admitted to the respective course, within the permissible intake under the category concerned as prescribed by the Government, strangely, has come forward with a contention in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had obtained admission in the NRI quota by fraudulent means. The petitioner has not committed any fraud as alleged.
27. On the contra, it is the college which is denying the factum of admission, contrary to the certificate issued by the Principal of the College and also the communication from the Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai. The communication from the Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai, would fortify the contention of the petitioner that he was admitted to the course, but his admission was not approved, due to the defect noticed. When the Directorate has sent the above communication to the College, it is evident that the petitioner was admitted to the College, but then, his admission was not approved.
28. The contention that the Principal, the Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul District that she joined the college only on 04.06.2010, and that she has counter signed the application, on 02.02.2011, on the bonafide belief that the entries contained in the abovesaid applications were true, and that the petitioner was not admitted to the college cannot be countenanced, for the simple reason that all the records were available in the college itself. The Principal, being the head of the Institution is not expected to state that she has blindly affixed her signature. Reading of the counter affidavit discloses that allegations have been made against the petitioner attributing misconduct, which are wholly irrelevant for adjudicating the relief sought for in this writ petition. Lack of attendance is also pleaded in the counter affidavit for not permitting the student to take up the examinations.
29. Earlier, the learned counsel for the third respondent contended that there was no admission at all, today, submissions have been advanced that the admission was granted to the petitioner, but, it was subject to certain conditions and it was only a provisional admission and not conclusive. As regards, the eligibility to sit for the examinations, the Principal, Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul District, third respondent has stated that the petitioner did not possess the minimum required attendance for writing examinations, which also supports the case of the petitioner that he was admitted to the first year B.E.Computer Science, in the third respondent College and that the only dispute was regarding the production of the Guardianship Certificate.
30. Insofar as the applicability of the decisions made in W.P.8167 of 2009 etc. batch of writ petitions, dated 26.11.2010 to this case, in some writ petitions, the students therein have challenged the validity of the G.O.Ms.No.162 Higher Education (JI) Department and the consequential order of the Director of Technical Education, Chennai rejecting the request of the petitioners therein and in some writ petitions, the orders of rejection alone have been challenged. However, The prayer in the writ petitions is to direct the respondents to allow the students to pursue the B.E. Degree course in the respective colleges.
31. While considering the competence of the Government in issuing the said order and also the case of the self financing Engineering colleges in granting admissions to various engineering colleges under NRI quota, at paragraph No.13 this Court held as follows:
"13. In the light of the above, the State Government had issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education Department, dated 02.06.2009 regulating the admission of students under the NRI quota in the Engineering Colleges for the academic year 2009-2010. In the said order, it was stated that the NRI quota shall not exceed 15% of the total sanctioned strength in each branch. Insofar as the definition of NRI and the method under which they should be admitted are indicated in paragraph 4(a) to 4(e), which are as follows:
"4(a)The NRI quota shall not exceed 15% of the total sanctioned strength in each Branch.
(b)Admission to the NRI seats may be made on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination.
(c)The candidates to be admitted under NRI quota are required to have obtained a pass in the Higher Secondary Examination (10+2 pattern or equivalent).
(d)The seats under NRI quota should be utilized bonafide by the NRIs only and for their children or wards. Therefore, the NRI financially supporting the candidates should either be the parent (Father or Mother) of the candidate or legally declared as guardian of the candidates by the Court as per provisions in "The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890".
(e)Candidates admitted under "NRI" quota should submit the following documents:
(i) NRI status certificate of the financial supporter issued by the Indian Embassy of the respective country under their seal.
(ii)Certificate of Relationship between the NRI financial supporter and the candidate issued by the competent authority. Valid India Passport of the NRI Financial supporter.
(iii)NRE Non Resident Externa) Bank Account Pass Book of the Financial Supporter.
(iv)Evidence for payment of Development charges of Us $1000/- to the college by the NRI financial supporter (One time payment at the time of admission only)".
32. On the contention of the third respondent college that the judgment rendered in the batch of writ petitions, stated supra, is not applicable to the facts of this case, it is to be noted that though the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.162 Higher Education (JI) Department dated 02.06.2009 has been held as legal and constitutionally valid, taking into consideration the plight of the students who were in the 4th semester of the Engineering courses and spent huge amounts, this Court had allowed them to continue the engineering courses in the same colleges, as if their admissions were valid. While permitting the students to continue the course, this Court has directed the engineering colleges, to pay Rs.1 Lakh each one of them to the Government. Material on record makes it clear that the 3rd respondent college to avoid the liability of payment of one lakh to the Government, has come out with a plea that the petitioner was never admitted to the college at all and that they have not collected huge fee. Collection of fee may be a matter, which is in dispute. But the factum of admission is supported by valid documents.
33. In the case on hand, the transfer certificate dated 09.11.2010 issued by the Vice Principal, American College, Madurai and the admission made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was permitted to attend the classes from 18th August 2010, counter signature made by the Principal of Christian College of Engineering and Technology are all to the effect that admission to the engineering course. Thus it is clear that the petitioner has been admitted to the first year B.E.-Computer Science Engineering in the third respondent college, even without production of the Guardianship Certificate, required under G.O.Ms.No.162, Higher Education (JI) Department dated 06.02.2009 and allowed to attend the classes from 18th August 2010. Though there is a dispute regarding payment of developmental charges, this Court is not inclined to delve into the same.
34. Though the third respondent college has attributed certain misconduct, the same is irrelevant for the purpose of adjudicating the lis. As distorted version is placed before this Court by the third respondent College, contrary to records, to deny admission and continuation of study by the petitioner, this Court is constrained to award a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the third respondent college to the writ petitioner and that there shall be a direction to the respondents, to allow the petitioner to continue his course in B.E.-Computer Science Engineering. The College is directed to send the proposals to the Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai forthwith. The College shall not victmise the student for approaching this Court. Necessary approval shall be granted by the Director of Technical Education, Chennai.
35. This writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the third respondent college to the writ petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vsm To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariate, Chennai.
2.Anna University Madurai, Represented by its Registrar, Old Kamarajar University Evening College Building, Alagar Koil Road, Madurai - 625 002.
3.The Principal, Christian College of Engineering and Technology, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.
4.Anna University, Represented by its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai - 25.