CORRESPONDENT, MADATHUPATTI GOPAL NAICKER COLLEGE Vs. MADURAI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises nut of an order in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the resolution of the Syndicate of the Madurai University dated 16th February, 1974, that the appellant college be recommended to the Academic Council and Senate for disaffiliation with effect from the academic year 1974-75. The Syndicate further resolved to inform the college authorities not to admit any student in any of the courses in the college during that academic year. The petition was dismissed by N.S. Ramaswami J. The matter had its genesis in a complaint sent by some of the teachers of the college to the Director of Collegiate Education, which in substance was two fold : (1) the College, had been permanently closed; and (2) while the teachers were paid their salary by cheques, they were asked to pay back to the Correspondent a part of the salary alter cashing the cheques. This complaint was dated 1st October 1973. The Director of Collegiate Education forwarded the complaint to the Madurai University and asked for a Commission to be appointed to enquire. Such a Commission was appointed by the Syndicate, as we find from the communication of the University dated 20th October, 1973, to inspect the college on 26th October, 1973, and to send a report immediately about its functioning. The Commission widened its sphere of inspection beyond the scope of the complaint and in its report dated 17th November, 1973, it recommended to the University that the Management of the college be asked to take back all the members of the staff who had been sent out by the Correspondent, to rectify all defects in the accounts and to be regular in the payment of salary to the members of the staff. Finally it felt strongly that for continued healthy existence of the college, the present Correspondent should be changed at once. Regarding the closing of the college permanently, as was complained earlier, the Commission made no finding, because it appeared that though the Management had put up such a notice of permanent closure, as a matter of fact, the college re-opened within a few days. Apparently this event happened because of some agitation on the part of the teachers and students who resorted to strike. This report was sent to the Management, and the reply was dated 2nd December 1973. We may mention that in the communication of the University dated 26th November, 1973, asking for the Management's reply, it did not propose any disaffiliation. The communication merely said that a copy of the report of the Inspecting Commission was enclosed and the Correspondent was directed to place it before the Managing Committee of the College immediately and send a report relating to the rectification of the various defects. There was also a request to change the Correspondent in the interest of the college. The reply dealt with in detail each of the points emerging from the inspection report. On 8th January, 1974 the Registrar of the University, in his letter addressed to the Correspondent, said that the College had not fulfilled various conditions relating to affiliation;

(2.) At its meeting dated 16th February, 1974, the Syndicate considered the Commission's report and the reply of the Correspondent to the specific matters referred to in the communication of the University. What we find in the extracts from the minutes of the meeting is this. In the first column the defects are stated and in the second column the reply of the Correspondent is mentioned. Then, under each charge and the reply, an office note is found. For example, as to the first charge, namely, there was no qualified Principal for the College on regular basis since the inception of the College, all that the office note said is that from the inception of the college no one was on continuous service for more than one year and that even then, after the resignation of Thiru T.A. Subramanian, from 12th October, 1973, there was no qualified Principal for the College. It may be seen from the office note that it is not denied therein that the three Principals who had preceded Subramanian, were qualified. Likewise, under each of the charges and the reply, the office made its note. At the end of this, we find a resolution as follows:

(3.) The Regulations which govern affiliation and disaffiliation are to be found in Chapter XXVI of the Calendar issued by the Madurai University for 1969-70. This chapter occurs under the caption "Laws of the University Statutes". Clause 1 (a) in this chapter relating to affiliation and approval of colleges defines the term "Affiliated college" as any college within the University area affiliated to the University and providing courses of study for admission to the examination for degrees of the University and includes a college deemed to be affiliated to the University. This definition shows that for purposes of affiliation of the college, it should be within the University area and it should provide courses of study for admission to the examinations for degrees of the University and the term would also include a college deemed to be affiliated to the University. Clause 3, which is the statute, as it is termed, relates to the procedure for withdrawal of affiliation or approval, and it reads: