P M R INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

(2.) BY consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(3.) WHILE the petitioner Institute has been conducting the above mentioned courses various issues had cropped up, including the issue relating to the alleged admission of students, in excess of the permitted limit, through the Single Window system. The fourth respondent Anna University had also made various allegations against the petitioner Institute stating that it does not have adequate facilities and amenities, as per the norms of affiliation, including the lack of sufficient laboratory equipments, hostel accommodation, canteen, transport etc. It was also alleged that the petitioner Institute does not have adequate teaching faculty to meet the teacher student ratio of 1:15, as required by the All India Council for Technical Education. It was also alleged that there was impersonation by some of the persons, who were posing as faculty members, during the inspection of the petitioner Institute by the Inspection Committee appointed by the fourth respondent University. It was further alleged that the petitioner Institute has not been maintaining the teacher student ratio of 1:15 by taking into account the sanctioned intake of students.