Full Judgment
1. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.
2. According to the Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the impugned circular of the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli is highly arbitrary, illegal, void, without jurisdiction and also an unconstitutional one.
3. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the third respondent/Vice Chancellor of the University had appointed a Committee and Inspection Commission of his choice in a clandestine manner in the absence of any statutory powers and therefore, the same is an illegal and void one.
4. The plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, had failed to consider the fact that only the Syndicate has power to appoint sub-Committee and constitute inspection commission for the purpose of granting affiliation to the colleges.
5. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner projects an argument that the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli has no statutory authority to issue Syndicate in circulation in the absence of any statutory powers. To put it succinctly, the stand of the petitioner is that the words 'Syndicate in Circulation' is neither adumbrated under the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act, 1990 nor the statute of the respondent University.
6. The core contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the approval for grant of any affiliation to a college or any additional course in a college involves larger public interest and the same cannot be decided without any collective discussion or consideration of the Syndicate Members.
7. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Inspection Commissions which inspected the college for grant of affiliation for the academic year 2016 - 17 and reported to the Committee appointed by the third respondent/Vice Chancellor were not approved by the Syndicate.
8. Also, the Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner addressed a representation to the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, on 31.05.2016, whereby and where under the petitioner had placed his dissent to the Syndicate Agenda and for the approval of the draft resolution of the Syndicate in circulation. However, till date, there is no response.
9. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Statute paragraph-21 which speaks of 'Procedure to be adopted in granting affiliation or approval' which runs as under:
21. A college applying for affiliation or approval shall send a formal letter of application to the Registrar between the 1st July and 31st October preceding the academic year in which the courses are proposed to be started and shall give full information in the letter of application on the following matters:-
(a) Constitution and personnel of the Managing Body.
(b) Subject and courses in which recognition affiliation or approval is sought.
(c) Previous applications, if any, for recognition, affiliation or approval in the same subjects and their disposals.
(d) Accommodation, equipment, the strength of the college, the number of students for whom provision has been made or is proposed to be made. The information relating to accommodation should be accompanied by drawings.
(e) Qualifications, salaries and work of teachers, together with a timetable of work.
(f) Hostel and playground, and the residences for the principles and the other members of the staff.
(g) Tamil Nadu Government permission for starting new College in the case minority instigations a court order according minority status.
(h) An undertaking that no capitation fee or donations of any will be collected from students/parents guardians any one else, inconsideration of admission.
(I) An undertaking that teachers will be paid UGC scales or pay.
(j) Fees proposed to be levied and the financial provisions made capital expenditure on buildings and equipment for the continued maintenance of the college.
10. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner seeks in aid of para-22 and para-25(b) and (c) which runs as follows:
22. All applications satisfying the above proviso for recognition, affiliation or approval of colleges shall be considered by the Syndicate.
25. (b) If the Syndicate decides to proceed with the application it shall direct an inspection to be made by competent person or persons appointed by it in this behalf provided that it shall be competent for the Syndicate to dispense with the enquiry above mentioned in the case of any subject or group of subjects in which it does not for special reason which shall be recorded consider an inspection necessary.
(c) After considering the report of the Inspection, if any, and after making any further enquiries it may deem necessary, the Syndicate, shall decide whether the recognition, affiliation or approval should be granted or refused, either in whole or in part. In case the affiliation or approval is granted, the fact shall be reported to the Standing Committee on Academic Affairs and the Senate at the next meeting.
11. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to Section 25 of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act, 1990. Under the caption 'Meeting of the Syndicate' which runs as follows:
25. (1) The Syndicate shall meet at such times and places and shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), observe such rules of procedure in regard to transaction of business at its meetings including the quorum at meetings as may be prescribed.
Provided that the Syndicate shall meet atleast once in every three months.
(2) The Vice-Chancellor, or in his absence any member chosen by the members present, shall preside at a meeting of the Syndicate.
(3) All questions at any meeting of the Syndicate shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting and in the case of an equality of votes, the Vice Chancellor or the member presiding, as the case may be, shall have and exercised a second or casting vote.
12. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that His Excellency, (the Governor of Tamil Nadu), his nominee one Professor PP.Chelladurai (Syndicate Member of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University) had addressed a representation dated 31.05.2016 to the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University pointing out the gross violation of statutory provisions and procedures in the proposed affiliation of courses to new and existing colleges.
13. The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court Babu Verghese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422, at special pages 432 and 433, whereby and whereunder at paragraph Nos.31 and 32, it is observed as follows:
31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426 :45 LJCh 373] which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] who stated as under:
[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098] and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 1527: (1962) 1 SCR 662]. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principles of administrative law.
14. While winding up, the Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner takes a categorical stand that the University Syndicate is the highest executive body of the respondent/University and that the second respondent/Registrar of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli had issued the impugned order in Ref.No.MSU/R/MandE/SYN.CIRLN/2016 dated 27.05.2016 with an ulterior motive to grant affiliation of new courses and continuation of affiliation for the academic year 2016-17 bypassing the Syndicate regular meeting. Therefore, the Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner prays for passing of an order by this Court to stay the impugned order of the second respondent dated 27.05.2016, to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice.
15. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for staying the impugned circular of the second respondent in Ref.No.MSU/R/MandE/SYN.CIRLN/2016 dated 27.05.2016. Viewed in that perspective, this Court grants ad-interim stay of the impugned circular of the second respondent/Manonmaniam Sundaranor University in Ref.No.MSU/R/MandE/SYN.CIRLN/2016 dated 27.05.2016, till 23.06.2016 and orders notice.
16. Post the matter on 24.06.2016.