KUMARAGURUBARA SWAMIGAL ART COLLEGE ARUL NANDI NAGAR SRIVAIKUNDAM Vs. MANONMANIYAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-college challenges the proceedings of the first respondent-University by which the University informed the College that the admission of the students to I M.Sc, Physics and I M.Sc, Chemistry for the academic year 1993-94 is not approved by the Syndicate since it has been done on the basis of adding 25 marks for their performance in an interview to test their knowledge of Saiva Siddantha and such a prescription is against admission rules laid down by the Government and the University. THE proceedings further stated that it is also resolved not to admit the said students for examinations. It is also stated that the College is permitted to fill up the vacancies caused by the cancellation of the above said admissions by fresh admissions on the basis of merit and rules of reservation.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that the petitioner-college was established in the year 1961 and is being administercd by Sri Kasi Mutt, Thirupanan-dal and Sri La Sri Kasivasi Muthukumaraswami Thambiran Swamigal is the head of the Mult. THE petitioner also alleges that Kasi Mutt is a Saivaite Religious Denominational Minority Institution under Art.26 of the Constitution of India and that the said Kasi Mutt has been established and is administering several Educational Institutions, one Kasivasi Swaminatha Swamigal Senthamil College at Tirupanandal, Sri Kumaragurubara Swamigal Matriculation School and other middle schools at Tiruloki, Tirupanandal etc., apart from the petitioner-college. It is also stated that the educational agency of the petitioner-college filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 1985 before the Sub Court, Kumbakonam for declaration, declaring its institution as a denominational minority educational institution and that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation Act) are not applicable to its colleges, including the petitioner-college. It is also stated that a decree was passed in favour of the petitioner by judgment dated 12.8.1985 granting declaration and than an appeal has also been filed by the State in A.S.No.62 of 1986 before the District Court, Thanjavur West, Thanjavur and it was dismissed by judgment dated 23.2.1990. THE said judgment and decree had become final. As such, it is staled that the petitioner-college is a denominational minority institution declared by the competent civil court. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the Madurai-Kamaraj University under whose jurisdiction the petitioner-college was functioning, granted affiliation to the petitioner-college to M.Sc, Physics from 19S5-86 and M.Sc. Chemistry from 1988-89, and that after the establishment of the first respondent University by virtue of the provisions of the Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University Act, 1990 (Act No.31 of 1990), the petitioner-college has come under the purview of the first respondent-University. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the Madurai University Teachers Association, which is called "MUTA" used to make false allegations against the petitioner management and started giving trouble to the Management. It is also pointed out that "MUTA" also sent frivolous applications to the respondent-University with regard to the admission of M.Sc, Physics and M.Sc, Chemistry for the present academic year. It is also stated that for the first year M.Sc, Physics and M.Sc, Chemistry course, 12 seats in each course are sanctioned to the petitioner-college and the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 16.6.1993. stated to adhere to the norms prescribed by the University while making admission to various post-graduate courses. It is pointed out that the candidate for admission to M.Sc, degree course, candidates should have secured atleast 55% marks in Part III of B.Sc, in the particular subject and in case of S.C./S.T. Candidates minimum marks may be reduced from 55 to 45. It is also pointed out that by communication dated 8.5.1993, the first respondent-University has stated that with reference to admission of students in any college, except minority, the admission should be strictly on merit basis subject to the rule of reservation and physically handicapped candidates. It is also alleged that the petitioner-college being declared minority college is empowered to admit students according to its faith, and that the only requirement is not to select any student who does not have the minimum prescribed marks of 55% in B.Sc, degree. It is also alleged in the affidavit that out of 12 seats permitted to the petitioner-college for each subject in M.Sc, and that the petitioner has selected 50% of seats purely on merits. It is also alleged that in the minority quota, the petitioner management conducted an interview to assess the knowledge of Saiva Siddantha for 25 marks and college candidates were selected. So the petitioner alleges that all the candidates under merit quota in M.Sc, Physics and Chemistry are admitted purely on merits basis and that the scats under minority quota were filled up after conducting an interview with academic marks and all the selected candi-dates are admittedly having more than 55%marks in their B.Sc, subject. It is also stated that the last date for admission of students was 31.8.1993 and that the selection list was duly intimated to the respondents after the completion of select ion. It is also stated, that being, so the first respondent-University at the instance of MUTA orders an enquiry by constituting a commission consisting of three members and the commission before completion of admission on 13.8.1993. visited the college and noted that two candidates from S.C. were not admitted in M.Sc, Physics and M.Sc, Chemistry. It is specifically pointed out that the said inspection was conducted before the completion of admission. It is also alleged in the affidavit that on the basis of the said inspection report, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the admissions are not made strictly in accordance with merit and also threatening to cancel the admissions made, if no explanation is offered. It stated that after getting a copy of the enquiry report, sent an explanation dated 24.9.1993. stating that the petitioner-college is a denominational minority college and it is entitled to admit students upto 50% as management quota and 50% alone is bound to be filled up strictly on merit. It is also pointed out that in the respondents without conducting an enquiry properly of verifying the actual facts passed the impugned order dated 29.10.1993 cancelling the admission of 1 M.Sc., Physics and I M.Sc, Chemistry for the year 1993-94 alleging that the management has violated the rules laid down by the Government and the University. It is also alleged that a reading of the order will disclose that the respondents have proceeded as if the petitioner-college is a non-minority college when the civil court has declared that the petitioner-college is a denominational minority college. It is also pointed out the affidavit that no candidate is admitted in M.Sc, course who has less than the minimum marks prescribed by the University and as such the respondents are not empowered to cancel the admission of Post Graduate courses of the petitioner-college. It is also pointed out that all the 24 candidates in Post Graduate course in I M.Sc. Physics and I M.Sc, Chemistry had paid the examination fees for the first semester examination commencing from 8.11.1993 and that by virtue of the impugned order, the students are unable to sit for the first semester examination. It is also pointed out that the petitioner-college is entitled to follow its own procedure for admission upto 50% as held by the Supreme Court in St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1630: (1992)1 S.C.C 558 and that the impugned order is in violation of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. It is further pointed that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the admission under the provisions of the Manon-maniyam Sundaranar University Act and that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction.

(3.) ORIGINALLY, the State of Tamil Nadu was not impleaded as party- respondent and it has been impleaded as fourth respondent by order dated 15.11.1993. in W.M.P.No.31419 of 1993.