2016 (8) TMI 1591 - HC - Indian Laws

Violation of principles of natural justice - reduction in the strength of admission - core stand of the Petitioner is that the Fifth Respondent/University on 21.06.2016, addressed a letter to the Petitioner, to rectify the deficiencies recorded in the Standing Committee Report, dated 16.06.2016 and suggestion to reduce admission strength to 60 - HELD THAT - In the instant case on hand, the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, in reference No. E1/W.P. No. 14238/2016, dated 02.07.2016, addressed to the Petitioner had observed that the Standing Committee in the report in respect of reduction of students strength from 120 to 60 and time limit of six months for improving the infrastructure facility and staff strength was already sent on 21.06.2016 and the same was forwarded. On 23.06.2016 and further informed that the Petitioner's response in this regard was not received so far. Apart from that, the Petitioner/Trust was requested to send its response for the Standing Committee report immediately. However, the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, by proceedings bearing reference No. E1/AC.131/II.4/2016, dated 03.07.2016, had communicated the decision in respect of the reduction of students strength at 60 from the academic year 2016-2017 (in respect of B.Sc. (Agri) Degree Programme), considering the infrastructural facilities of the Petitioner/College, run by Sri Krishna Educational Trust, Bangalore. This Court pertinently points out that in between the letter dated 02.07.2016 of the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and proceedings dated 03.07.2016 of the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, there was a gap of only one day. In the letter dated 02.07.2016 of the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, the Petitioner/College, was requested to send its response for the Standing Committee Report immediately and no time limit was prescribed expressly in the said communication of the Fifth Respondent for sending the response of the Petitioner/College. Since on the next day viz., 03.07.2016, the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, had communicated the decision in regard to the reduction of students strength at 60 in respect of B.Sc. (Agri) degree programme from the academic year 2016-2017 in respect of the Petitioner's College, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner/College was not provided with adequate/reasonable time to submit its response for the Standing Committee Report in question. As such, this Court comes to a resultant conclusion that there is violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The decision of the Academic Council (the supreme body in respect of academic affairs) to reduce the students admission strength from 120 to 60 to the Petitioner's College (based on the premise that the petitioner has no reply to the Standing Committee's Report) is per se not correct, in the Eye of Law. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, dated 03.07.2016 communicating the reduction of strength at 60 from the academic year addressed to the Petitioner suffers from legal infirmity. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the impugned order reducing admission strength from 120 to 60.
2. Alleged lack of infrastructural facilities in the Petitioner College.
3. Compliance with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, 1971 and related statutes.
4. Alleged bias and malafide actions by the Respondent University.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order Reducing Admission Strength from 120 to 60:

The court examined the impugned order issued by the Fifth Respondent/Registrar of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, which reduced the admission strength of the Petitioner College from 120 to 60 students. The order was based on the Standing Committee's report indicating inadequate infrastructural facilities. The court found that the Petitioner was not provided adequate time to respond to the Standing Committee's report before the order was passed, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the Academic Council to reconsider the issue after providing the Petitioner an opportunity to respond.

2. Alleged Lack of Infrastructural Facilities in the Petitioner College:

The Respondent argued that the Petitioner College lacked adequate infrastructural facilities, as evidenced by the Standing Committee's report which found that the College had only 44.3% of the required infrastructure. Specific deficiencies included the absence of botanical gardens, inadequate laboratory facilities, poor library resources, insufficient teaching staff, and inadequate hostel facilities. The court noted that these deficiencies were significant and required rectification. However, the court also emphasized that the Petitioner should be given a fair opportunity to address these issues.

3. Compliance with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, 1971 and Related Statutes:

The Petitioner argued that the actions of the Respondent University were not in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, 1971, and related statutes. The court examined the compliance requirements and found that the Petitioner had initially signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to fulfill all infrastructural facilities as prescribed. However, the court noted that the renewal of the MOU and the conditions for affiliation were contentious issues that needed to be resolved through proper legal procedures, ensuring adherence to statutory requirements.

4. Alleged Bias and Malafide Actions by the Respondent University:

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent University acted with bias and malafide intentions, particularly in issuing the show cause notice and reducing the admission strength. The court found that the allegations of bias and malafide actions were serious and required careful consideration. The court directed the Academic Council to re-evaluate the matter impartially, ensuring that any decisions made were free from bias and based solely on the merits of the case.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The court highlighted the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, which include issuing prior notice, providing the right to make representations, and the right to be heard. The court found that the Petitioner was not given adequate time to respond to the Standing Committee's report before the impugned order was passed, thereby violating these principles. The court emphasized that no order with civil consequences should be passed without following the rules of natural justice and directed the Academic Council to ensure compliance with these principles in future proceedings.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 03.07.2016, and directed the Academic Council to reconsider the issue after providing the Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the Standing Committee's report. The court also emphasized the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements in all future actions.