Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:28.07.2010
CORAM:
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.Nos.9115 to 9133; 9241;
9931 to 9937; 9938 to 9944;
9945 to 9951; 10048 to 10051;
10114 to 10119; 10325 to 10332;
10359 to 10364;10511 to 10514;
10803; 11422 to 11426;
11427 to 11441; 11581;
11582 to 11585; and
11630 OF 2010 and
connected Miscellaneous Petitions
W.P.No.9115 of 2010
P.Padma ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Vice-Chancellor
Anna University , Madras 600 025.
2. The Registrar
Anna University, Madras 600 025.
3. The Controller of Examinations
Anna University , Madras 600 025.
... Respondents
Prayer : The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to Memo No.COE/C20/2010/1305 dated 20.2.2010 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondents : Mr.G.Masilamani, Sr.Counsel
for Mr.Mani Sundara Gopal
******
C O M M O N O R D E R As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are common, by consent, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. The prayer in all these Writ Petitions are for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the third respondent dated 20.2.2010, whereby the petitioners were prevented from continuing the fourth semester programme of M.E./M.Tech degree during 2009-2010 and permitted to continue IV Smester Programme during the even semester 2010-2011.
3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are all Engineering Graduates having completed their B.E./B.Tech course and they have joined the faculty of various private Engineering Colleges in the State as Lecturers to teach the undergraduate Engineering students in such colleges. While they were functioning as Lecturers, they have simultaneously enrolled themselves for full time M.E./M.Tech Post Graduate programme either in the College where they were working as Lecturers or in some other private Engineering Colleges. This came to the notice of the respondent University, which called for a meeting of the Principals of the various Engineering Colleges where the petitioners were working and a Committee was constituted to go into this matter. The Committee so constituted conducted a personal hearing of all the candidates and submitted its recommendation. The recommendation was accepted by the respondent University and by the impugned order, imposed a punishment on the petitioners preventing them from continuing the IV Semester of M.E./M.Tech programme during the session 2009-2010, but permitted them to continue the IV Semester during the even semester 2010-2011. The students were further directed to seek for re-admission before commencement of the IV Semester during 2010-2011. By virtue of such order, the petitioners would loose one year and cannot complete the course this year. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioners are before this Court by way these writ petitions.
4. This Court while admitting the Writ Petitions, granted an interim order on 5.5.2010, permitting the students to sit for the IV Semester examination and directed that the results shall not be published and if ultimately the petitioners fail in the Writ Petitions, they cannot claim any equity. The respondent University filed Petitions to vacate the interim order and this Court by order dated 30.6.2010, while making the interim order absolute, made it clear that the conditions imposed originally would hold good, that the results shall not be published and if ultimately the petitioners fail in the Writ Petitions, no benefit accrues to them on account of appearing for the examination on 1.7.2010 and directed the Writ Petitions to be posted for final disposal during third week of July 2010. Based on such orders, the Writ Petitions have been posted before this Court for final disposal.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the University while passing the impugned order, categorised the students in three categories as detailed below:
i)such of those who have resigned their job during the first semester; ii)such of those who have not resigned even after January 2009 and iii)such of those who have not resigned even before January 2010.
6. In respect of the first category, no punishment was imposed and in respect of the second category, the candidates have been prevented for one year and in respect of third category, the candidates have been prevented for two years from continuing their IV Semester and such categorisation or classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since persons who are facing similar allegations have been treated differently. It is further contended that no intimation was received from the University that the candidates should resign from their Lecturership while they were doing the first semester of the M.E./M.Tech course and only when they had completed III Semester, the University issued a notice calling upon them to appear for an enquiry on 22.1.2010. Thus, the classification adopted by the University is discriminatory. It is further contended that the University has no power to punish the students as there is no rule or regulation to the said effect.
7. The Post Graduate programme is governed by the Regulations framed by the University and the Regulation 2005 alone is applicable and under the said Regulation, there is no punishment contemplated if a candidate violates the mode of study for full time course prescribed under clause 2.2.1. It is further contended that the Regulation 2005 is only an enabling power and and if the candidate fails to attend the full time course, at best, the candidate would loose attendance and nothing more. Therefore, in the absence of any rule giving power for the University to punish the candidates, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further, the respondent University has not pointed out as to which rule, the petitioners had violated and there is no procedure contemplated under the Regulations in respect of the allegations made against the petitioners.
8. Section 5 (ab) of the Anna University Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) gives power to the University to do all such acts and things whether incidental to the powers and functions aforesaid or not as may be necessary or desirable to further the objects of the University. The power conferred under the Act could be exercised by the University only after framing Regulations or Rules and in the absence of Regulations, the University cannot act. In support of such proposition, the learned counsel relied on the Hon'ble Division Bench Judgment of this Court in 2004 (5) CTC 572 [ TRICHY ENGINEERING COLLEGE Vs. ANNA UNIVERSITY].
9. It is further contended that the University has amended the Regulations for the Post Graduate Programme on 17.5.2010 and in clause 2.2.1, a condition has been inserted that full time candidates who were enrolled for Post Graduate Programme should not attend any other full time programme or take up any full time or part time job in any Institution or Company during the period of the full time Post Graduate Programme and violation of the rule will result in cancellation of admission to Post Graduate Programme.
10. By relying upon this amendment, the learned counsel would submit that it is manifest that there is no such power prior to 17.5.2010 or impose any punishment as has been done by the impugned order. Further, there are cases where the candidates have resigned from their job, prior to July 2008 and inspite of production of adequate proof of having resigned the job, the enquiry committee failed to take into consideration the same and recommended punishment. One such case is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.10119 of 2010 where the petitioner was relieved from the post of Lecturership on 30.6.2008. Further, the University has penalised only such of those candidates who were working as Lecturers in Engineering Colleges, but, has not imposed any punishment on candidates who are working on full time basis in other Companies and Departments and Private Organisations and the petitioners who were Teachers have been unreasonably dealt with. Further, in order to facilitate the petitioners, the Institutions where they enrolled for full time Post Graduate Programme, conducted such classes during week ends and all the petitioners have attended those classes and qualified themselves. Further, the University has not taken any action against the Management which permitted the petitioners to enroll for full time programme and simultaneously work as Lecturers in the Private Engineering Colleges, but has penalised the petitioners who have spent their valuable time and resources to get themselves better qualified. That the petitioners are at the door steps of their life and at this stage, the impugned order causes irreparable hardships to all of them. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order calls for interference and prayed for allowing the Writ Petitions.
11. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent University would contend that the University has been very considerate to the petitioners and imposed only a minimum penalty which does not affect the petitioners career or in any manner their right to secure First Class Degree or Distinction. The University first called for meeting of all the Principals of the Private Engineering Colleges, thereafter constituted various committees for inspecting the colleges and after elaborate procedure, notices were issued to the petitioners to appear before the Committee and they were all afforded sufficient opportunity to present their contentions and after considering the same, the impugned order has been passed.
12.The learned Senior counsel referred to the minutes of the enquiry committee meeting dated 6.2.2010 in support of his submission. Further, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel that there is a reasonable basis for classifying the candidates into three categories depending upon the date of resignation from the Lecturership and the classification is based on the commencement and ending of particular semester. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the respondent University.
13. The learned senior counsel would submit that the University is fully empowered to take such action and such power is traceable to Section 5 (ab) of the Act, which empowers the University to do all such acts and things which are incidental to the powers and functions as may be necessary or desirable to further the objects of the University. Further, it is contended that the petitioners being Teachers, they have to be roll models and admittedly they cannot be present in both places i.e. work as Lecturer in a College and simultaneously pursue their full time M.E./M.Tech course.
14. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would contend that no compassion need be shown to the petitioners as they are educated persons and the University has been very lenient with the petitioners and this Court would not interfere in such matters especially when the University seeks to achieve better standards in higher education. That there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice and by the punishment imposed the petitioners are in no way prejudiced and this Court will not substitute its view to that of the decision arrived at by academicians.
15. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
16. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners were working as Lecturers in Private Engineering Colleges and simultaneously enrolled for M.E./M.Tech Post Graduate programme in private Engineering Colleges. Some of the petitioners have joined the Post Graduate programme in the same Institution where they are working and the others in different Institutions.
17. By virtue of the power conferred under section 5 of the Act, the University has framed guidelines during 2005, applicable to students to be admitted to non autonomous Engineering Colleges affiliated to the respondent University. Under the Regulations "Programme" means Post Graduate Programme such as M.E./M.Tech Degree Programme.
18. Clause 2.2.1 deals with full time study and states that candidates admitted in full time should be available in the College/Institution/University during the complete working houses for curricular, co-curricular and extra curricular activities assigned to them. Clause 2.2.2 deals with part - time day time, which is the mode of study where the candidates are required to attend classes on every working day along with full time students for half a day either in the forenoon or in the afternoon. Clause 2.2.3 deals with part time/evening, for which separate classes are conducted in the evening. The duration of a full time post graduate programme as per clause 3.1 is minimum of 4 semesters and a maximum of 8 semesters. Similarly, in respect of part time post graduate programme, it is minimum of 6 semesters and maximum of 12 semesters. Clause 9 deals with requirement of completion of semesters and the minimum attendance required is 75%. Every candidate who secures between 65 and 74 % in the current semester due to medical reasons, accident, etc. or due to participation in College or University or State level sports events with prior permission of the Principal shall be given exemption to appear for the current semester. Candidates who do not complete the semester will not be permitted to write the University examination at the end of the semester and will not be permitted to go to the next semester and are required to repeat the incomplete semester in the next academic year. Thus, under the regulations, the duration of the programme for a full time and a part time course is different and the number of semesters is more in the case of part time courses.
19. It had come to the notice of the respondent University that several students like the petitioners are pursuing full time Post Graduate Programme and simultaneously working in Private Engineering Colleges affiliated to the respondent University and based on such information, a meeting of Principals of Colleges which offered such full time Post Graduate Programme was called for on 7.12.2009 and the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University chaired the meeting and instructed the members to refrain from permitting the full time Lecturers to enroll themselves in full time Post Graduate programme. In order to curtail such activities in colleges affiliated to the respondent University, a Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor and the Committee is stated to have met on 25.11.2009 and 3.12.2009 and recommended for inspection of 17 colleges in the State. The Committee so constituted conducted inspection and submitted its report and in the said report, it was stated that some of the Colleges have admitted that they conducted M.E./ M.Tech full time programme only 2 to 4 days in a week including Saturdays and Sundays and a few colleges claim to have conducted programme during week ends with faculty members as students and therefore, the attendance records of the faculty members and students were called for by the Committee. The Committee further reported that some students studying first year M.E./ M.Tech programme during 2009-2010 have discontinued, some faculty members have simultaneously take M.E./M.Tech full time programme after resigning their job and some faculty members were simultaneously doing M.E./M.Tech programme under full time programme and have sought conversion from full time to part time.
20. Based on the recommendation of the committee dated 17.1.2010, pending finalisation of the matter, the following directions came to be issued:
1. The results of November/December 2009 Examinations of the candidates alleged to have violated the regulations may be withheld and they may be called for further enquiry.
2. The faculty members claimed to have resigned their post and continuing their I year M.E./M.Tech Programme may be permitted to write the January 2010 Examinations after getting an undertaking.
3. The faculty members who are doing I year and opted for conversion from Full-Time to part-Time (Day time) may be permitted, subject to the fulfillment of Part-time (Day time) admission norms."
21. It is further submitted that 255 candidates (which included the petitioners) in the second year M.E./M.Tech programme whose names were found as faculty members in the records of the University were called for personal enquiry on 5.2.2010 and 6.2.2010 and they were enquired by the Committee. Based on the enquiry conducted, the committee had submitted its observation and reported serious violation causing dilution of academic standards. Therefore, the committee recommended suitable action against erring students with a view to make them realise the importance of quality education. Based on such recommendation, the students/petitioners were categorised under different categories.
22. For better appreciation, the three categories are as hereunder:
Category I
(i) Students not worked as a faculty member since August 2008 and (ii) those who have resigned the faculty position prior to February 2009 i.e. during their I Semester of the study.
List of the students falls under the category is given in the Annexure-I. These students may be permitted to continue the Full-time IV Semester of their respective M.E./M.Tech. Programmes during 2009-2010 and the results of III Semester examination held in November/December 2009 may be released.
Category II Students who have not resigned their faculty position even after January 2009 List of such students is given in the Annexure II. These students may be prevented from continuing their IV Semester of the Programme during 2009-2010 and may be permitted to continue the IV Semester of the programme during the even semester of 2010-2011 as these students have pursued the Full-Time M.E./M.Tech. Programme simultaneously when working as Full-time faculty member, causing detriments both to their studies and teaching responsibilities. Results of III Semester examination held in November/Decembr 2009 may be released.
If the students have already paid the fees for the IV Semester of the programme during 2009-10, no fee should be collected from him/her when he/she rejoins the programme during 2010-11.
Category III Students who have been already warned during their I or II Semester of M.E./M.Tech. Programme not to continue as Full-time faculty/employee but have not resigned even before January 2010.
List of such students are given in the Annexure III. These students may be prevented from continuing their IV Semester of study during 2009-10 and may be permitted to continue the IV Semester during even semester of 2011-2012 as they have failed to correct their violations in spite of two warnings given to them and continued the programme causing damage both to their studies and teaching responsibilities. Results of III Semester examination held in November/December 2009 may be released.
If the students have already paid the fees for the IV Semester of the programme during 2009-10, no fee should be collected from him/her when he/she rejoins the programme during 2011-12."
23. Further, there were also recommendations against the Colleges and measures/recommendations for imparting quality education. Subsequently, the petitioners/students have represented to the University to re-consider the the punishment imposed. Based on such representation, the University considered the matter and without modifying the punishments already imposed, granted further relaxation, which is to the following effect:
"(i) During the debarred period, the students may be permitted to write their arrear examinations.
(ii) During the debarred period the students may be permitted to function as faculty members of the affiliated college if both the parties concerned desire so.
(iii) When the students rejoin for the IV Semester for the programme, their admission may be converted to day-time part-time mkode permitting them to function as faculty member while pursuing their PG Programme as a special case.
(iv) If the students who are debarred for one academic year, qualify for the degree by April/May 2012 examination, they re also eligible for First Class/First Class with Distinction as a special case subject to fulfilment of other eligibility conditions.
(v) If the students who are debarred for two academic years, qualify for the Degree by April/May 2013 examination, they are also eligible for First Class/First Class with Distinction as a special case subject to fulfilment of other eligibility conditins.
(vi) If the students have already paid the fees for the IV semester of the programme during 2009-2010, no fees should be collected by the College from him/her when he/she rejoins the programme during 2010-2011/2011-2012 as the case may be."
The above decision was also communicated to the petitioners and the respective colleges.
24. Thus, it could be seen that the categorisation of the candidates has been done based on the date of resignation from their lecturership. The submission of the University is that a person who has resigned his/her job during 2008, has comparatively done less damage than such of those candidates who have resigned thereafter.
25. In my view, the categorisation done by the University appears to have a basis. The first set of candidates are those who have worked as faculty members since August 2008 and those who have resigned the faculty position prior to February 2009 i.e. during the first semester of their study. The second category being those who have not resigned even after January 2009 and the third category are those who have been warned during first and second semesters of the Post Graduate Programme not to continue their full time employment, but have ignored such warning and have not resigned even before January 2010. Therefore, such categorisation of the candidates has a reasonable basis and it cannot be termed as an arbitrary exercise or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order suffers from discrimination or that the classification is irrational or arbitrary.
26. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no regulation framed for imposition of punishment. As noted, Section 5 of the Act deals with powers and functions of the University and in terms of clause (ab) of section 5 of the Act, the University is empowered to do such acts and things which are incidental to the powers and functions as may be necessary or desirable to further the objects of the University. The object of the University, as could be seen from Section 4 of the Act, among other things is to further the advancement of knowledge in Engineering and Technology and allied sciences for the betterment of the society. Therefore, this power under section 5 (ab) of the Act empowers the University to do certain acts or things which are found to be necessary to achieve the objects of the University. Firstly it is to be noted that Regulation 9 stipulates the requirements for completion of a semester. In view of the conduct of the petitioners, it is deemed that they have not fulfilled Regulation 9.1 and therefore the University is justified in preventing the students from taking the IV Semester during the year 2009-10. Secondly even assuming there is no specific regulation, for imposing a particular punishment, the question which would arise is as to whether the University is within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in the absence of any specific Regulation being framed under section 5(ab) of the Act regarding the punishment. At this stage it is relevant to note the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard.
27. In Orissa State (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills and Another, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 421, the Honourable Supreme Court was considering the scope of Section 54 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Under the said provision it is stated that subject to the provision of sub-section (3), the State Government may by notification in the official gazette make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act in respect of the matters involving within the purview of section 53. Therefore the question which arose for consideration was as to whether as long as the manner is not prescribed under the rule for declaration of an area as air pollution control area, a valid notification under section 19(1) of the said Act could be published in the Official Gazette or not. Answering the said question, the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 20, held as follows:
"20. We feel that so far as the point relating to the meaning of the word may used under Section 19 of the Act is concerned, it is not relevant for resolving the controversy we are concerned with. Once the manner is prescribed under the rules undoubtedly, the declaration of the area has to be only in accordance with the manner prescribed but absence of rules will not render the Act inoperative. The power vested under Section 19 of the Act, would still be exercisable as provided under the provision i.e. by declaring an area as air pollution control area by publication of notification in the Official Gazette. Non-framing of rules does not curtail the power of the State Government to declare any area as air pollution control area by means of a notification published in the Official Gazette. The part of the provision in such manner as may be prescribed would spring into operation only after such manner is prescribed by framing the rules under Section 54(2)(k) of the Act. This view as indicated earlier, is amply supported by the decision of this Court referred to above in the case of T. Cajee which is a decision by a Constitution Bench of this Court. It has been followed in a subsequent decision of this Court reported in Surinder Singh v. Central Govt. The Central Government had not framed rules in respect of disposal of property forming part of the compensation pool as contemplated under the provisions of the relevant Act. It was claimed by one of the parties that the authority constituted under the Act had no jurisdiction to dispose of urban agricultural property by auction-sale in absence of rules. The contention was repelled with the following observations: (SCC p.673, para 6) Where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters, subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same. In other words framing of the rules is not condition precedent to the exercise of the power expressly and unconditionally conferred by the statute. The expression subject to the rules only means, in accordance with the rules, if any. If rules are framed, the powers so conferred on authority could be exercised in accordance with these rules. But if no rules are framed there is no void and the authority is not precluded from exercising the power conferred by the statute. A reference was also made to the decisions of this Court in the cases reported in B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore and Mysore SRTC v. Gopinath Gundachar Char. Reliance was also placed on U.P. SEB v. City Board, Mussoorie."
28. In the case of Surinder Singh v. Central Government, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 667, the Honourable Supreme Court was considering the correctness of the order passed by the High Court, which held that the disposal of property forming part of compensation pool was subject to the rules framed as contemplated under sections 8 and 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and since no rules had been framed by the Central Government with regard to the disposal, the authority had no jurisdiction. While holding that the view taken by the High Court was incorrect, the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 held as follows:
"6. .............. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is incorrect. Where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters, subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same. In other words framing of the rules is not condition precedent to the exercise of the power expressly and unconditionally conferred by the statute. The expression subject to the rules only means, in accordance with the rules, if any. If rules are framed, the powers so conferred on authority could be exercised in accordance with these rules. But if no rules are framed there is no void and the authority is not precluded from exercising the power conferred by the statute. .................."
29. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions it has to be held that even in the absence of any regulation under section 5(ab) of the Act, it cannot be stated that the University cannot act in the manner done under the impugned orders. It is well open to the University to act in a manner to achieve the object of the Act and furtherence of the object in ensuring high standards of education.
30 Therefore, merely because the regulation has not been framed under the Act specifying various actions that could be taken if a course of study is violated it cannot be said that the University is powerless to take action or that the statute itself becomes inoperative. Hence, the submission made by the learned counsel in this regard does not merit acceptance.
31. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Trichy Engineering College, referred supra was dealing with the case where the University took action for violation of the norms stipulated by the AICTE without specifically adopting such norms being framed as their own Regulation. In that context, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that in the absence of any regulation by the University to take action for violation of the norms prescribed by AICTE and as the University having not adopted the regulation of AICTE, it was held that there was no power to disaffiliate such Institution. Therefore, the observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench was under the said context and the decision is of no assistance to the case of the petitioners.
32. It is seen that clause 2.2.2 of the Act lays down that with part time - day time which is the mode of study when the candidates are required to attend classes on every working day along with full time students. If such a rule was laid down for part time students it goes without saying that full time students have to attend classes for the session. Amendment of clause 2.2.1 dated 17.5.2010 has only explicitly laid down what would be done on violation of the Regulation.
33. Clause 9 requires a minimum attendance of75% to appear for each semester. A candidate who has been employed as a lecturer to teach under graduate students could not have fulfilled the requirement of this clause. It is really shocking to know that some of the petitioners have enrolled for full time M.E./M.Tech programme in Engineering College situated at a distance of 100 kms from the College they were working. It defines logic as to how the petitioners could be pursuing their full time study and full time teaching. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioners cannot be appreciated.
34. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners who are working as lecturers have been penalised, whereas the other candidates who were working in private organisations and deemed Universities have been left out. In my opinion, this cannot be a ground to set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioners, in view of the settled legal principle that there cannot be any equality in an illegality. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that as and when information is available regarding any such candidate who have pursued full time course and simultaneously were in employment in any organisation, the University would take action. However, this Court is not concerned with the same at this juncture. It is to be noted that the mode of study prescribed under the regulation clearly states that the candidates who are admitted in the full time programme should be available in the Institution during complete working hours for curricular, co-curricular and extra curricular activities assigned to them. Therefore, conducting classes during week ends or in the evening hours cannot be stated to be in compliance with the regulations and o that score, the petitioners cannot be pleaded that they have attended full time course.
35. As pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents that the first two semesters of the full time course classes are to be conducted for eight periods and during the third semester, half of the time has been allocated for practical classes and remaining half of the time for the projects and the fourth semester is entirely devoted for projects and interactions. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the students could have effectively pursued full time course when he/she is a lecturer in a private Engineering College, taking classes for full time B.E./B.Tech students. Thus the contention raised by the petitioners does not merit acceptance.
36. In the report submitted by the committee constituted by the respondent University to probe into the matter, recommendations and observations have been made regarding the colleges and in fact certain punishments have also been imposed on certain institutions. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that no action has been taken against the Institutions appears to be factually incorrect. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the punishment imposed on the petitioners is lenient and this Court will not venture into the arena of proportionality of the punishment or manner in which the punishment imposed would take effect. It has been established by the respondent University that petitioners/candidates have violated the mode of study of a full time course under the Regulation 2005. The punishment imposed is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary nor it is disproportionate to the allegations. In fact considering the seriousness of the issue and the damage which has been caused regarding the quality of education not only for the petitioners, but also to the students for whom they have been alleged to be imparting education cannot be quantify or measured in any manner. Therefore, the decision taken by the University is perfectly valid and would serve as deterrent for any person to resort to such practices. In fact the position has since been made clear by the amendment of Regulation 2.2.1 which contemplates cancellation of admission if a candidate who has enrolled for a full time Post Graduate programme and simultaneously take up a full time job. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
37. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the petitioner in W.P.No.10119 of 2010, P.Jothi, has been relieved from Lecturership even prior to the commencement of the M.E.Course, has not been taken into consideration and she has also been penalised.
38. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submits that proof of resignation has not been produced before the Committee by the said candidate, but only a Service Certificate dated 11.3.2010 has been filed in the typed set of papers which may not be adequate proof of resignation. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that wherever cases are there with factual details, it would be open to such candidates to submit a representation for consideration of the University and if such representation is made, the same would be considered and orders would be passed in accordance with law.
39. This submission made by the learned counsel is placed on record and liberty is granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.10119 of 2010 to make appropriate representation.
40. In the result, the Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
rpa