GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT Vs. SRM UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed in W. P. No. 256 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by seting aside the impugned order passed by the appellant, and directed the appellant to consider the proposal of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner for their Off Campus Centre at Tiruchirapalli. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Department, which was arrayed as the first respondent in the writ petition, is the Appellant in this appeal.

(2.) The challenge in the writ petition was to an order passed by the appellant, dated 16.11.2010, and a direction was sought to direct the appellant to consider the first respondent's proposal to bring the off Campus Centre at Tiruchirapalli under the ambit of the respondent University, by applying the regulation prevailing at the time of the application and not in accordance with the UGC Regulation of 2010 and to grant approval to start the Off Campus Centre for the academic year 2011-12.

(3.) Some factual background would be necessary before we approach the controversy- The respondent University was declared as an institution deemed to be an University as per Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, (UGC Act) during August 2002 and it is stated that they have campuses and conducts courses at Chennai and Uttar Pradesh. A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W. P. (Civil) No. 142 of 2006, as regards the functioning of deemed to be Universities in the country and the Government of India by notification, dated 06.07.2009, set up a committee to review the functioning of the existing institutions within"Deemed to be Universities" with wide ranging mandate. Concurrently the UGC was also directed to take up review of the functioning of all deemed to be Universities with respect to maintenance of standards, especially with regard to availability of qualified faculty and infrastructure. This Committee shall be referred to as the "Prof. Tandon Committee". The Prof. Tandon Committee submitted a report on 19.10.2009, in which, the first respondent falls in group2/table -2, which was found to be deficient in certain matters to transit to group-1, and a period of three years was granted to make good the deficiencies for their continuation as Deemed Universities. These facts are not in dispute, but the contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent is that the placement of the respondent University in group-2 is not germane to the controversy in this litigation.