M JAYASUDHA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this writ petition are the students who have been admitted by the second respondent/College to a course for the academic year 1990-91 and they have come to this court by way of this writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent/University refusing to grant provisional affiliation to the second respondent/college for the academic year 1990-91.

(2.) THE second respondent/College was informed by the University as early as in May, 1990, that it should not admit any students for the academic year 1990-91 without getting provisional affiliation from the University. Inspite of that, the second respondent/College admitted the students for the academic year 1990-91 and the petitioners herein are some of those who were so admitted. When the College issued a notification for admission, a notice was issued by the University to the second respondent/College on 28.6.1990 requesting the second respondent to state how it has issued the admission notification without getting continuance of provisional affiliation from the University for the courses, namely, (i) B.Sc., Computer Science; (ii) B.Sc., Nutrition and Dietetics; (iii) B.Sc., Bio-Chemistry; and (iv) B.Com., for the academic year 1990-91 inspite of clear instructions given not to admit students to any of the said courses for 1990-91. THE University further requested the second respondent/College that the advertisement should be withdrawn immediately by issuing another notification in the press and a copy of the same should be sent to the University within a week's time from the date of receipt of the notice. Otherwise, the University will be constrained to issue a counter-notification in the Press for the information and benefit of the public to the effect that the second respondent/ College has not yet been granted continuance of provisional affiliation by the University for 1990-91 and the students seeking admission would be doing so at their own risk. At this state, the second respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9602 of 1990 and sought for two interim orders, one seeking stay of the letter of the University insofar as it directed the second respondent/ College not to admit any students for the academic year 1990-91 and the other for an interim injunction restraining the University from issuing any notification in the press with regard to the admission of the students in the second respondent/College for the year 1990-91.

(3.) AFTER hearing Mr.A.L.Somayajee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.R.Tamizhmani, learned counsel for the University of Madras who stoutly opposes the writ petition itself, I am of the view that the petitioners have no right to challenge the order passed against the second respondent/College refusing to continue the provisional affiliation to the second respondent/College for the academic year 1990-91. From the facts narrated about it could be seen that the grant of affiliation was in doubt and the University was not permitting the second respondent/College to admit students for the year 1990-91 and this has been made clear by the University in its communication sent to the second respondent/College as early as in May, 1990. Inspite of such specific direction given by the University not to admit students, the second respondent/College has admitted the students and had come upto this Court challenging even the issuance of a notification in the press that the second respondent/College has not been granted affiliation and hence the students should not seek admission therein. Though an allegation-is made in the affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition that around 80 students had been admitted, it is not very clear as to which course or courses the students had been admitted. Further, here is a case where the students studying in the second respondent/College have come upto this Court challenging the order passed by the University refusing the continuance of provisional affiliation to the second respondent/College for the academic year 1990-91. This, in my view, should not be encouraged. A College without infrastruc-tural facilities cannot and should not be allowed to run. It has been made so clear by me and this view of mine has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institutions v. The State of Tamil Nadu Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institutions v. The State of Tamil Nadu Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institutions v. The State of Tamil Nadu 1989 Writ L.R. (Supp.) 62.