Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5312 (MAD)

P. Padma v. Vice Chancellor, Anna University

2010-12-02

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2010
K.K.Sasidharan , J.:-Whether it was permissible for students admitted under full time study for Post Graduation course in Engineering to undergo the course while simultaneously working as full time faculty members of Engineering Colleges, is the question which arises for determination in this batch of writ appeals. 2.These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 28.07.2010 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge made to the order passed by Anna University preventing the Post Graduate Engineering Students from continuing their fourth semester programme of M.E./M.Tech Degree during 2009-2010 with permission to continue IV Semester Programme during the even semester 2010-2011. 3.Since the facts in all these writ appeals are identical, the factual matrix as contained in the lead matter is taken to narrate the background facts. The Facts :- W.A.No.1533/2010 [W.P.No.9115/2010]:- 4.The Appellant completed her Under Graduation course in Engineering and thereafter, she was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Sri Muthukumaran Institute of Technology, Chennai. While functioning as Lecturer, she joined M.E. Course in Computer Science and Engineering in the very same college for the academic year 2008-2010. There was no objection from the University at that point of time for undergoing P.G. Course while working as Lecturer. It was only during the month of November, 2009, the University intimated the students who were studying in the P.G. Course not to work in any other establishment. Subsequently, the second respondent issued notice to the appellant on 22.01.2010 to attend enquiry on 05.02.2010. The appellant submitted her objection on 06.02.2010 and she was given a personal hearing. However, without considering the valid points raised in the explanation, the third respondent passed an order punishing the petitioner for working as Lecturer and for simultaneously studying as a full time student. The said order dated 20.02.2010 was challenged in W.P.No.9115 of 2010. 5.The Anna University in their counter affidavit justified the action taken against the students for undertaking P.G. Course even while working as members of the faculty of the concerned college. According to the University, candidates admitted under the full time course should be available in the College and as such, there was no question of permitting the Lecturers of the college to undergo full time P.G.Course. The University appointed a Committee to identify the tainted colleges and the said Committee identified about 17 affiliated colleges. According to the University, candidates admitted under the full time course should be available in the College and as such, there was no question of permitting the Lecturers of the college to undergo full time P.G.Course. The University appointed a Committee to identify the tainted colleges and the said Committee identified about 17 affiliated colleges. It was found that 255 students who were pursuing II Year full Time M.E./M.Tech courses were employed as full time faculty members in the affiliated colleges. Therefore, based on the reports collected from the colleges and the statements given by the students during the enquiry, the Committee observed that serious violation of regulations have been committed, causing dilution of academic standards. This made the University to issue notice to the individual students as well as to the Institutions. It was further contended that a candidate pursuing M.E./M.Tech course would not be able to secure 75% of attendance as well as to teach classes for B.E. Students so as to enable those students to secure 75% attendance. According to the University, petitioners are not entitled to write the ensuing IV Semester examination as the very enrollment of the students was in violation of the University regulations. Accordingly, the University justified the impugned order. The Judge's reasoning :- 6.The learned Single Judge considered the issue in the light of the University regulations and observed that a candidate employed as Lecturer to teach U.G. Students could not have fulfilled the requirements of Clause 9 of the Regulation regarding P.G. Courses which prescribes a minimum attendance of 75% to appear for each semester. According to the learned Judge, the Appellants were enrolled as full time students and as such, it was not permissible to work elsewhere during working hours. The learned Judge further observed that the punishment imposed on the Appellants was lenient and it was not open to the Court to venture into the arena of proportionality of punishment or the manner in which the punishment would take effect. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the Writ Petitioners are before this Court. Rival Submissions :- 7.The learned counsel for the Appellants made extensive submissions with respect to the modes of study and the related matters. According to the learned counsel, there was no prohibition under the University regulations for a faculty member to undergo full time Post Graduate course. Feeling aggrieved, the Writ Petitioners are before this Court. Rival Submissions :- 7.The learned counsel for the Appellants made extensive submissions with respect to the modes of study and the related matters. According to the learned counsel, there was no prohibition under the University regulations for a faculty member to undergo full time Post Graduate course. The only requirement was to meet the attendance criteria and it does not matter as to whether the full time scholar was able to get attendance by attending classes during holidays or evening hours. The learned counsel further contended that the very fact that the University has subsequently framed regulation prohibiting the full time students to become faculty members clearly shows that the existing regulations does not contain any prohibition for such employment while continuing as students. 8.The learned senior Counsel for the Anna University justified the order passed by the University. According to the learned senior Counsel, full time course suggests that the candidate should be available on a full time basis in the concerned college. It was not open to them to work elsewhere and to attend colleges either in the evening or on holidays. The University has taken a lenient view in the matter. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the University could have de-recognized the students, but however, taking note of the fact that they have already undergone the course, a very lenient view was taken. The Issue :- 9.The basic question is as to whether a member of faculty would be entitled to pursue his/her P.G. Study by taking admission under full time course. The Relevant Statutory Provisions :- 10.The Anna University Act, 1978 was enacted to provide for the establishment of a University of Technology in the State of Tamil Nadu. Section 5 of the Anna University Act deals with the functions of the University. Section 5(ab) deals with incidental powers. The said provision reads thus ::- 5.Powers and functions of the University :- (ab)to do all such acts and things, whether incidental to the powers and functions aforesaid or not, as may be necessary or desirable to further the objects of the University. 11.The Anna University has framed regulations with respect to P.G. Programmes. There are three modes of study – Full Time, Part Time - Day Time, Part Time-Evening. 11.The Anna University has framed regulations with respect to P.G. Programmes. There are three modes of study – Full Time, Part Time - Day Time, Part Time-Evening. The regulation reads thus :- 2.2 Modes of Study :- 2.2.1 Full Time : Candidates admitted under "Full Time" should be available in the College/Institution/University during the complete working hours for curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities assigned to them. 2.2.2. Part time – day time: In this mode of study, the candidates are required to attend classes on every working day, along with Full time students, for half-a-day either in the Forenoon or in the Afternoon. 2.2.3. Part time – Evening: In this mode of study, separate classes are conducted in the evenings. 2.2.4. Conversion from one mode of study to the other is not permitted." 12.The regulations pertaining to P.G. Programmes also contains provisions regarding requirements for completion of semester and for appearing for the semester examination. The regulation reads thus :- 9.Requirements for completion of a semester :- A candidate who has fulfilled the following conditions shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for completion of a semester. 9.1. Ideally every student is expected to attend all classes and secure 100% attendance. However, in order to allow for certain unavoidable reasons such as medical/participation in sports/personal, the student is expected to attend at least 75% of the classes. Therefore, he/she shall secure not less than 75% of overall attendance in that semester taking into account the total number of periods in all courses put together attended by the candidate as against the total number of periods in all courses offered during that semester. However, a candidate who could secure attendance between 65% and 74% only in the current semester due to medical reasons (hospitalization/accident/specific illness) or due to participation in the College / University / State / National / International level sports events with prior permission from the Principal shall be given exemption from the prescribed attendance requirement and he/she shall be permitted to appear for the current semester examinations. 9.2.Candidates who do not complete the semester (as per clause 9.1), will not be permitted to write the University examination at the end of the semester and not permitted to go to the next semester. They are required to repeat the incomplete semester in the next academic year. 9.2.Candidates who do not complete the semester (as per clause 9.1), will not be permitted to write the University examination at the end of the semester and not permitted to go to the next semester. They are required to repeat the incomplete semester in the next academic year. 10.Requirements for appearing for semester examination :- A candidate shall normally be permitted to appear for the semester examination of the current semester if he/she has satisfied the semester completion requirements (vide Clause 9) and has registered for examination in all courses of that semester, as well as the arrears of previous semester. Discussion :- 13.The Appellants were admitted under Full Time Course, meaning thereby, they should be available in the college during the complete working hours for curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities assigned to them. Those who were admitted under full time need to take only four semesters. However, part time students have to undergo six semesters. Therefore, there is a basic difference between the full time course and part time course. 14.Full time course was intended for students who can spare the entire day in the college. It was only to facilitate those who have no time to attend the regular course, part time evening course was envisaged. Similarly, the University has also part time/day time course where the students have to attend classes on every working day along with full time course students for half a day either in the forenoon or in the afternoon. This basic difference is borne out from the fact that the full time students have to attend only four semesters but however, part time students have to attend six semesters. 15.The petitioners were all employees of the respective engineering colleges. They got themselves enrolled as students either in the same institution or elsewhere for P.G. Course. The Appellants have justified their admission under the Full time course on the ground that the attendance register maintained by the college would prove that they have attended the college as full time scholar. However, the fact remains that in most of the cases attendance were given only by the college where they were working. Therefore, it was a secret arrangement made by the college and the faculty members without the knowledge of the Anna University. However, the fact remains that in most of the cases attendance were given only by the college where they were working. Therefore, it was a secret arrangement made by the college and the faculty members without the knowledge of the Anna University. 16.The Appellants have no case that their admission under full time course, even during their functioning as college Lecturers, was approved by the University. 17.The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that University regulations do not prohibit a Lecturer from undergoing full time course. The modes of study, as extracted above, itself is an answer to the said submission. Anna University, by prescribing Full time course as a mode of study, clearly stated that candidates admitted under the full time course should be available in the College/Institution/ University during the complete working hours for curricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities assigned to them. It was not open to a full time institution to conduct their course in the evening or on Saturdays and Sundays. The courses conducted under Full Time mode were expected to be conducted on a full time basis. The fact that the University has also permitted Part Time -Day Time; Part Time – Evening Course, would make the position clear that the modes of study with respect to full time and part time are entirely different. 18.The Appellants by undergoing full time course even while functioning as Lecturers really caused injustice to themselves as well as to the students for whom they were taking classes. The Appellants have no case that they were employed as part time Lecturers. Their appointments were on a full time basis. They were conducting classes for engineering students. The subjects were not confined to theory. Therefore, the attention of the faculty members on a full time basis should be made available to the students. 19.The University appears to have received information regarding the modus operandi adopted by the colleges for conducting P.G. Courses by employing the full time students as Lecturers. Accordingly, a Committee was constituted consisting of the Controller of Examinations; Director, Academic Courses; Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions; Director, Student Affairs and Additional Controller of Examinations to study the matter in-depth and to suggest remedial measures and suitable action to be taken to avoid recurrence of such activities in future. Accordingly, a Committee was constituted consisting of the Controller of Examinations; Director, Academic Courses; Director, Centre for Affiliation of Institutions; Director, Student Affairs and Additional Controller of Examinations to study the matter in-depth and to suggest remedial measures and suitable action to be taken to avoid recurrence of such activities in future. It was only on the basis of the report submitted by the Committee, the University issued notice to the concerned affiliated colleges and the students. The University issued individual notices to the students and it was only after considering their explanation and after giving personal hearing, the impugned orders were passed. Therefore, even the principles of natural justice were fully complied with before passing the impugned orders. 20.The learned single Judge has given a factual finding on the basis of materials available on record that some of the appellants were employed in colleges nearly 100 k.ms., away from the college where they were enrolled as students in P.G. Course. Therefore, it is really surprising as to how the appellants were able to secure attendance in the P.G. Course while simultaneously working as faculty members elsewhere. 21.The incidental provision as contained under Section 5(ab) should be read in the light of the regulations 9 and 10 of the P.G. Regulations. The regulations would give a clear idea that candidates who do not complete the semester will not be permitted either to write the University examination at the end of semester or go to the next semester. Therefore, minimum attendance is mandatory for entry to the next semester. When it was made out that the appellants who were admitted under full time course were simultaneously working as faculty members, it was implied that they did not satisfy the attendance criteria. The candidates admitted under the full time course should be available in the college on all working days. The records would show that the appellants were available in the college as faculty members. They were also available in the college as students of P.G. Course. Since some of the appellants have studied in the very same college where they were working as faculty members, the college was in a better position to manipulate records regarding attendance. The records would show that the appellants were available in the college as faculty members. They were also available in the college as students of P.G. Course. Since some of the appellants have studied in the very same college where they were working as faculty members, the college was in a better position to manipulate records regarding attendance. Merely because the college authorities have declared that the appellants secured the required attendance and they studied as full time scholars, it cannot be said that they were eligible to continue the course and the punishment was harsh. Since the appellants have admitted that they functioned as faculty members simultaneous with their education as P.G. Students, no further proof is necessary to arrive at a conclusion that the very continuance as a P.G. Student was in violation of the P.G. Regulations. 22.The regulations were framed by the University in larger public interest. Therefore, the University was expected to ensure that those students who have admitted under Full Time course were actually available in the college and they satisfy the attendance criteria so as to enable them to appear for the semester examination and to go to the next semester. Regulations regarding requirements for completion of semester clearly shows that only those students who have attended at least 75% of the classes alone would be permitted to appear for the semester examination. 23.The part time - day time course and part time - evening course were designed for candidates who were working elsewhere. Such courses were introduced with a view to help the employed personnel. However, they should undergo six semesters, extending to three years. Full time course contains four semesters extended to two years. Therefore, the primary difference between these two courses would give a clear idea that full time course was intended only for day time scholars. 24.The issue before the Supreme Court in All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others [ (2009) 11 SCC 726 ] was that the YMCA Institute of Engineering was given permission to convert the four year Post Diploma Courses into an Advance Diploma Programme of four years duration. AICTE granted approval for upgradation of the four year Advance Diploma Course into five year Engineering Degree Programme leading to B.Tech Degree. AICTE granted approval for upgradation of the four year Advance Diploma Course into five year Engineering Degree Programme leading to B.Tech Degree. In order to enable the students who had successfully completed the four year Post/Advance Diploma Course and to acquire degrees in engineering, the Institute wanted to commence one year bridge course. The said request was rejected by AICTE. The order of rejection was quashed by the High Court and a direction was issued to the AICTE to accord approval for the upgradation of four year Advance Diploma Course into a five year Engineering Degree Programme. The said direction was set aside by the Supreme Court. While allowing the civil appeal, the Supreme Court indicated the role of statutory and expert bodies on education and the limited role of Courts in such matters. The relevant paragraph reads thus :- "16.The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. 17.The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off." 25.The appellants have no case that they were not heard before taking a decision by the University. Admittedly, show cause notice was issued to the concerned candidates and their explanations were also called for. The appellants were given a personal hearing by the University. The materials furnished by the appellants confirmed the fact that while simultaneously working as full time faculty members, they have pursued I to III semesters in M.E. Computer Science and Engineering as Full Time Scholars. 26.The term "Full time" implies occupying the whole of the time, whereas "part time" denotes part of the usual working day. The materials furnished by the appellants confirmed the fact that while simultaneously working as full time faculty members, they have pursued I to III semesters in M.E. Computer Science and Engineering as Full Time Scholars. 26.The term "Full time" implies occupying the whole of the time, whereas "part time" denotes part of the usual working day. Therefore, the very term "Full Time" indicates that a full timer should be available in the institution during the complete working hours. It is not possible for a full time employee to undergo a full time regular course, as it would be difficult for him to attend the classes regularly on a full time basis. There is no question of a regular employee attending the regular full time classes elsewhere. Even in the same city, it would be impossible. In such cases, the candidate has to choose either employment or education. In case the faculty members or other employees are permitted to attend regular colleges, it would undermine the standard of education. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the decision of the University that students who have undergone the full time course while simultaneously working as full time faculty members would not be permitted to appear for the semester examination or to enter the next semester. 27.This Court is concerned only with the decision making process. In matters like this, the role of the Court is very limited. Anna University Act and the Regulations gives authority to the University to permit students to appear for the examination on fulfilling certain conditions. It is for the University to decide as to whether such mandatory conditions were satisfied by the respective candidates. The University appointed an expert committee and collected materials and it was only on the basis of such materials, a decision was arrived at to punish the appellants. The learned single Judge has considered the entire materials and arrived at a correct conclusion. 28.In the upshot, we dismiss the writ appeals. No costs.