SACRED HEART COLLEGE Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is an autonomous aided minority educational institution affiliated to the first respondent University. According to the petitioners, petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P9 to P13 orders issued by the University restricting the petitioners from exercising their functions as an autonomous institution. It is also submitted that, first respondent University is interfering by issuing orders which directly impinge upon the academic autonomy of the petitioners institution. First respondent University vide Ext.P9 directed the petitioners not to issue provisional certificates to the passed out students of the college even though degree certificates of these students are not issued by the University within the statutory 45 days time limit fixed for the same and even after almost 10 months of the recommendation for the issuance of the same was forwarded by the petitioners. That apart it is stated that, the first respondent is duty bound to permit the petitioners to issue provisional certificates as per the Guidelines for Autonomous College issued by the UGC. It is also stated that, first respondent University vide Ext.P12 directed the petitioners to follow the Academic Calendar of the University for admission, which according to the petitioners are against the guidelines for autonomous college issued by the UGC and as per the provisions of the Mahathma Gandhi University Statute, Ordinance and Acts. That apart it is also stated that, the authority under the University Laws (third amendment) Ordinance, 2014 to make academic regulations regarding admission of students in an autonomous college, which is to be done by the academic council of the autonomous college. The sum and substance of the contention advanced generally with respect to the relief sought for is that, petitioners college has got sufficient leverage and liberty to conduct autonomous institution in a manner as provided under Ordinance, 2014, which is subsequently transformed into Act.

(2.) Yet another contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, Ext.P3 recommendation was made by the college for issuance of degree certificate. However, Ext.P4 communication is issued by the University dated 15.11.2016 directing the college to submit certain documents and also to place originals of the basic qualification certificates of the students. Accordingly, Ext.P5 reply was issued by the college providing the details, however, stating that the basic qualifications certificates are not available with the college since after verification by the University initially, they are returned to the students. Ext.P6 communication is also issued by the college expressing its inability to produce the certificates in original. According to the petitioner, thereafter Ext.P7 requisition was made for issuance of the degree certificate for PG and UG, however, there is no response. These are the background facts projected by the petitioners to secure the relief sought for in the writ petition, which are as follows:-

(3.) Standing counsel has filed a statement for and on behalf of the University basically refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioners. Among other contentions it is stated that, on verification of the copy of the mark list submitted along with the application it was not seen that it was in an approved format of the University. Even though all the courses for 2014 admissions were conducted in accordance with the scheme and syllabus of the University evaluation scheme followed by the college was different from that of the University. While, University issued grade cards on a 4 point scale the petitioners college issued mark list in the mark scheme with grading on a 10 point scale. It is also contended that, autonomous colleges are bound to follow evaluation grading system prescribed by the University. As per Section 116(5) of Chapter IX of MG University Act, 1985, the Mark list of autonomous colleges shall be in a format consistent with that prescribed by the University. The petitioner has no approval of the respondents for issuing mark lists in a different format. The matter is under consideration of the Board of Studies of the University and hence degree certificates can be issued after a decision in this regard is taken by the Board of Studies. That apart it is also stated that, as verification of eligibility for admission of students to various courses in autonomous colleges is done by the college authorities, the qualifying certificates are to be submitted in the office for verification before issuing degree certificate as there are several cases of admission given to ineligible students. Though the second petitioner was asked to submit the same for verification vide office letters dated 15.11.2015, 23.12.2016, 6.1.2017 and 1.3.2017, the certificates have not yet been forwarded to the office for verification. Hence it is submitted that, the verification of the qualifying certificates of all the students has been duly completed is incorrect. That apart it is also stated, University can issue degree certificates only after proper verification of the eligibility of the students admitted to a course. Therefore, according to the respondent University, the contentions and allegations made by the petitioners against the University cannot be sustained under law. However, it is stated in categoric terms that, the subject issue with respect to the grading of the mark list is under the consideration of the Board of Studies.