- (1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the University dated 30.11.2000 under which it is stated that it is not possible to admit the students through Central Council for the academic year 2000-2001, though the Inspection Commission strongly recommended for affiliation considering the infrastructure facility. It is also stated that it is a resolution to grant affiliation for the college for the academic year 2001-2002.
(2.) THE petitioner college made an application to the second respondent for grant of approval for starting Engineering College in Tirunelveli for the academic year 2000-2001. THE second respondent in its proceedings dated 4.10.2000 accorded the approval subject to fulfilment of the general conditions and as per the norms and standards of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). THEreafter the petitioner has filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.18533 of 2000 for issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for affiliation and pass orders. In the order dated 3.11.2000, this Court has directed the first respondent to pass orders on merits on the petitioner's application. THE first respondent now under the impugned order granted affiliation only for the academic year 2001-2002 though the petitioner sought for affiliation for the academic year 2000-2001. THE University found that the petitioner has provided all infrastructure facilities which are necessary for running the college. Even in the impugned order, it is stated that the Inspection Commission has strongly recommended for affiliation, considering the infrastructure facilities. Inspite of that the University has granted affiliation only for the academic year 2001-2002 on the basis that it is not possible to admit the students through Central Counseling for the academic year. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the students could not be admitted to the petitioner's college through Central Counseling only because the second respondent has accorded the approval only on 4.10.2000 which is not a mistake of the petitioner. According to him, even if the students could not be admitted through Central Counselling in view of the scheme framed by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178, and also in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 1995 (5) S.C.C, 220, the petitioner can be allowed to admit the students as the petitioner has already provided all facilities and infrastructure. According to the learned Senior Counsel merely because the Central Counselling is over and there cannot be any further single window scheme for the purpose of selecting the students for the petitioner's college the University need not postpone the affiliation till 2001-2002. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University has submitted that the University cannot have any objection to grant affiliation for the academic year 2000-2001. Only in view of certain objections in some other cases in admitting the students by the college itself without following the single window system, the University has followed the said procedure giving affiliation for the academic year 2001-2002. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent has submitted that the University is absolutely correct in granting affiliation from the year 2001-2002 as the college can admit the students through Central Counselling only from the said year. The learned counsel has submitted that the Judgments refer red by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner will not apply to the petitioner's case and the petitioner cannot admit any students during this academic year and no purpose will be served even if affiliation is given for this academic year 2000-2001. The learned Government Advocate relied on the Judgment in Writ Appeal No.2405 of 1999 etc. dated 14.1.2000. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got approval from the second respondent on 4.12.2000. The University also found that the petitioner's institution is entitled for affiliation as they have complied with all the norms. The Inspection Commission has also recommended for affiliation taking into consideration of the infrastructure provided by the petitioner. Though the petitioner is entitled to get affiliation for the academic year 2000-2001, the University granted affiliation only for the academic year 2001-2002 on the basis that the petitioner cannot admit the students through Central Counselling for the academic year 2000-2001. It is also relevant to mention here, that the second respondent while according to the approval, no such condition was contemplated. From the order of the University, I am able to see that otherwise on merits, the petitioner is entitled to affiliation even for the academic year 2000-2001.
(3.) SO the question remains, whether the petitioner can admit the students during the academic year 2000-2001 after it getting affiliation for the said academic year. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the scheme provided in the Unnikrishnan's case, submitted that there is no absolute prohibition to admit the students by the institution itself. In given circumstances, the students can be admitted by the institution themselves. Clause 9 of the scheme contemplates the said circumstance and it reads as follows:- "After making the allotments, the competent authority shall also prepare and publish a waiting list of the candidates along with the marks obtained by them in the relevant test/examination. The said list shall be followed for filling up any casual vacancies or'drop-out'vacancies arising after the admissions are finalised. These vacancies shall be filled until such date as may be prescribed by the competent authority. Any vacancies still remaining after such date can be filled by the Management". From the said clause, it is clear that if any vacancies remain after making the allotments by the competent authority, the management can accompany the students selected by them after the prescribed date. Even in the Judgment reported in T.M.A.Pai foundation Case, 1995 (5) S.C.C. 220 the said procedure has been approved. It reads as follows: So far as engineering and other colleges are concerned, the rules, regulations and orders made by the Council, Government concerned and this Court shall continue to govern for this academic year. There shall be no change in so far as these colleges are concerned. In short, the position obtaining in the academic year 1994-95 shall apply and continue for academic year 1995-96. The allotment of students to these colleges shall be completed by 30.9.1995. Any seats remaining unallotted or any seats remaining unfilled on or after 16.10.1995 shall be allowed to be filled by the Management". From the above, it is clear that the management can admit the students in the circumstances mentioned in the said Judgment. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that the Judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case. According to her, the said Judgment shall apply only to institutions which are in existence and admitting the students through Central Counselling. The petitioner institution is yet to start to admit the students and for such institution, the principles set out in the said Judgment will not apply. The learned counsel for third respondent relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench in Writ appeal 2405 of 1999 etc. dated 14.1.2000 in support of her submission. In the said case, the institutions challenged the order of the University, directing them to submit their application for affiliation for the next year on the basis that the single window system was already over for that year. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The said Judgment of the learned Judge was challenged in the said writ appeals. While considering the said facts the Division Bench has held as follows:- "The appellants'Colleges were never included in the single window system as they had not so far obtained affiliation from the University. The approval granted by the AICTE. specifically stated that they can admit students only based on the scheme formulated in the Unnikrishnan's case. There can only be a single window system of admission on merit and other permissible conditions. The students, who have been admitted in the courses of the appellants'colleges, were not selected on the basis of the common entrance examination. The students who have now joined the courses in the appellants'colleges were selected exclusively by the management. Such sort of admission was not even permitted under the approval granted by the AICTE. Therefore, the prayer of the appellants that they may be permitted to continue the course cannot be allowed and the University was justified in rejecting their application". Having held so, the Division Bench gave liberty to seek approval before AICTE and affiliation before the University for the academic year 2000-2001. Thereafter, at the instance of the parties, the Division Bench clarified the said Judgment as follows:- "This matter is posted today. for being mentioned." Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants may be permitted to pursue the matter with the University to reconsider their earlier decision and to grant affiliation to the appellant Colleges. It is upto the appellants to pursue any such remedy; we make it clear that the dismissal of the writ appeal will not stand in the way of the University in taking any decision in the matter". On the basis of the said clarification, the University reconsidered the issue and granted affiliation even for the academic year 1999-2000 but ultimately passed the resolution stating that number of students admitted by the college during the current year 1999-2000 as payment seats against "free seats" shall be added to the number of seats earmarked as "free seats" for the next academic year ie., 2000-2001. From the above, it is clear that the appellants in the said appeals in effect would admit the students only for the next year. ;