V.Parthiban, J. - (1.) The facts and circumstances necessitating the filing of this Writ Petition are briefly stated hereunder: 1.1.The petitioner is one of the oldest private engineering colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu and was established in 1957. It was originally founded by a philanthropist and industrialist Late Shri. Karumuttu Thiagarajan Chettiar. The college has been funded by both the Central and State Government and also by the management of the college. In 1987, the college was granted autonomous status and is affiliated with the third respondent university. According to the petitioner, it offers 9 undergraduate programmes, 10 post-graduate programmes and besides doctoral programmes in Engineering, Science and Architecture. The college is a reputed institution in the field of higher education and known for its excellence particularly providing quality education in the field of engineering and science academic courses at both under-graduate and postgraduate levels. 1.2. In the Academic Year 2018-2019, the petitioner college started Master of Architecture course. The second respondent, namely, Council of Architecture, is a Central body akin to enjoying the position as that of All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) in respect of regulating Architecture courses in the country. The course of Architecture being a highly specialized programme, the second respondent is the approving authority, functioning under the legislative guidance of the Architects Act, 1972. The Act 1972 provides various regulations for professional practice of Architecture and also conduct of Architectural Education. 1.3.The second respondent Council, being the regulatory body, has granted approval for commencing M.Arch. course in the petitioner college with a sanctioned intake of 20 students from the academic year 2018-2019. The application of the petitioner college seeking recognition and approval was scrutinized and verified with reference to Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education for Post-graduate Programme) Guidelines, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 2006 Guidelines). According to the guidelines that the faculty strength has been defined and prescribed in regard to the conduct of the post-graduate courses in Architecture. As the college fulfilled the criteria of availability of the faculty strength, the approval was granted for conduct of the Post-graduate Courses in Architecture for the Academic Year 2018-2019. 1.4.In terms of the approval by the second respondent, the college commenced the post-graduate programme in Architecture and successfully conducted the courses in its last two Academic Year namely 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. As far as the Academic Year 2020-2021, the petitioner college submitted its application to the second respondent for approval with details of the teaching faculty available on the strength of the department of Architecture consisting of 11 Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor, etc. both full-time and visiting members. The break-up of the Teaching Faculty had also been submitted to the second respondent. The application was submitted before the second respondent on 24.01.2020 along with relevant documents and scrutiny fees. According to the petitioner college, the faculty and the cadre strength shown for this year was higher than it was in the previous years and the teacher-student ratio was also higher than the norms prescribed by the second respondent Council. 1.5.While so, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 03.08.2020 calling upon the college to explain as to why the intake of the post-graduate students should not be reduced from 20 to 10 on the ground that "there is major cadre wise core faculty deficit (1 professor and 1 associate professor). According to the petitioner, the sudden prescription of a different norms which was not prescribed in the earlier years had taken them by surprise and the college was at a loss to understand how the Council could specify any additional norms in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 45 of the Architect Act, 1972. According to the petitioner college, the norms prescribed for faculty strength i.e., one Professor, 2 Associate Professor and 2 Assistant Professor (1:2:2) is a deviation from the 2006 guidelines which prescribed only 1:2:2, namely, one Professor, 2 Assistant professor and two Research scholars. The case of the petitioner college was that though the college had fulfilled the requirements of the norms in terms of the guidelines 2006, there was no legitimate reason for issuing the present impugned show cause notice by the second respondent on 03.08.2020. 1.6.On receipt of the show cause notice, the college has submitted a detailed reply on 06.08.2020. In the reply, the college however has clarified to the Council that the college has been maintaining the proper cadre strength of faculty as per the latest norms having two Professors, two Associate Professor and two Research scholars a total of 11 member of the faculty and a proof in support of the statement has also been enclosed along with the reply. After submitting the reply, the college has requested for grant of necessary approval for the academic year 2020-2021 with the intake of 20 students. 1.7.In response to the reply of the college dated 06.08.2020 and also in furtherance of the show-cause notice dated 03.08.2020, the second respondent passed the proceedings on 14.08.2020 reducing the intake of the college from 20 to 10 on the ground that "the institution must appoint and maintain cadre wise faculty for post-graduate courses as per Council's norms. Challenging the reduction of the intake of post-graduate students, the college is before this Court in this Writ Petition.
(2.) Mr.Raghuvaran Gopalan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the impugned action of the second respondent cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts for more than one reason. He would draw the attention of this Court to the guidelines issued under the Architects Act, 1972 in 2006, namely, Minimum Standards of the Architectural Education Guidelines for Post-Graduate Programme. According to the guideline No.8, that the institution offering post-graduate programmes shall have a minimum core faculty consisting of 1 Professor, 1 Assistant Professor and 2 Lecturers or Research Associates and the postgraduate programme shall have a faculty student ratio of 1:5 and the institution can also have 50% of its teachers from visiting faculty. According to the learned Counsel that these norms have been fully complied with and fulfilled. Therefore, the college is at a loss to understand as to how the second respondent could change their norms suddenly for the present academic year 2020-2021 when the fact of the matter was that for the earlier two academic years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 with the very same faculty strength, approval was granted by the second respondent.
(3.) The learned Counsel further submitted that notwithstanding the legal lacunae in the change of norms against the statutory provision of Architects Act, 1972 even the present norms prescribed by the second respondent has been fulfilled, as the petitioner college has clearly explained in the reply dated 06.08.2020 showing the faculty details by enclosing a statement of availability of faculty members along with each faculty's position and connected details. The learned Counsel drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order of the second respondent dated 14.08.2020 wherein the second respondent has not at all referred to the detailed reply with supportive materials submitted by the petitioner college. According to the Counsel, the order dated 14.08.2020 per se does not disclose any proper application of mind on the part of the second respondent in regard to the reply submitted by the petitioner college, but strangely the Council had withdrawn the intake of 10 students from the total strength of 20 students for the present academic year, without assigning any reason. The order does not disclose semblance of reason for the impugned reduction of student strength and therefore, he submitted that the order is ex facie illegal and liable to be interfered with.;