ST XAVIERS EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.