WILSON Vs. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader and the counsel for respondents 8 and 9.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the founder Chairman of Mary Matha Education Society which established 8th respondent Self Financing Professional Engineering College. The petitioner contends that 9th respondent, a creditor of the society, later ousted the petitioner and other existing members from the Governing Body of the college, declared himself as the Chairman and is administering the college from 2008 onwards. According to the petitioner, as per the report of the CAG of India at Ext.P4, during 2008, 33 unqualified students were given admission in 8th respondent's college for B.Tech regular system and subsequently, several other students got entry into the scheme. All these illegal admissions made by the college was only with an intention to collect huge capitation fee which is prohibited by law. The 9th respondent being a senate member of 3rd respondent University is having influence and therefore, none of the respondents are taking any action. With these averments he sought for the following reliefs:

(3.) IN the year 2008 regulations of B.Tech Degree Course were framed according to the requirements of AICTE approved by the Academic Council and the same is followed as the minimum qualification for admission to B.Tech course. No other decision was taken in this regard. For all the courses candidates belonging to SEBC with a total annual family income not exceeding .4.5 Lakhs will have some relaxations so far as qualifying examinations. The verification of qualifications was only limited to verifying whether the intake of students in a particular college was in conformity with the total sanctioned strength of a particular course. The Principal Secretary therefore directed the University to formulate a system to check the admissibility of students at the time of admission itself. So far as 2009 and 2010, Educational qualifications of students were also verified and they were allowed to register for the respective examinations. As on the date of filing of the counter affidavit registration for 2011 were not yet commenced. Therefore, further information is not placed on record. According to the 2nd respondent after receiving the reply from the Principal of the institution proper course of action will be undertaken. Therefore, second respondent submits they were awaiting reply of the Principal.