Judgment:
PRAYER: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the second respondent, to comply with the eligibility criteria and procedure for affiliation as prescribed in the U.G.C. (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009.
O R D E R
1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the second respondent, i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of Law (Convener of Convener Committee, M.S.University), to comply with the eligibility criteria and procedure for affiliation as prescribed in U.G.C. (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009.
2 The petitioner is working as Associate Professor of History at Arignar Anna College, Aralvaimozhi, Kanyakumari District. He is also Senate member of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. The Colleges situated in southern districts of Tamilnadu are affiliated with various universities. The University Grants Commission is a statutory body constituted under the University Grants Commission Act with an authority to prescribe the qualification of teachers, conditions of affiliation of colleges and other matters connected therewith.
3 The case pleaded in the affidavit is that Regulations framed by the U.G.C. have statutory force of law and therefore, are binding on all the Universities and affiliated colleges. The U.G.C. has framed regulations stipulating therein that each College should have five acres of land, administrative and academic building with sufficient accommodation to meet immediate academic and other space requirements. The academic building is required to be sufficient to accommodate the facilities like library and laboratories and also number of teaching and non teaching staff as per U.G.C. prescribed norms. The College is also required to have adequate civic facilities like water, electricity, ventilation, toilets, sewerage, and is required to have financial provision for running the college for three years with a corpus fund of Rs.15 lakhs per programme. The college is also under statutory obligation to appoint qualified teachers who are to be paid salary as per the U.G.C. Scales of pay.
4 The U.G.C. in exercise of powers conferred under Sec.26 of U.G.C. Act, has framed regulations to maintain and improve the quality of higher education. The objects of U.G.C. Act and the regulations framed to determine the standards in higher education which are traceable to entry 66 List 1, VII schedule of Constitution of India. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, the respondent No.5 and other universities therefore are bound by the regulations framed by the U.G.C.
5 The grievance of the petitioner is that Universities are granting affiliation to the colleges without compliance of U.G.C. Regulations Act, 2009 and the regulations framed thereunder.
6 The petitioner being the Senate member filed representation to the respondents, to see that the U.G.C. Regulations, 2009 are implemented in letter and spirit. The petitioner has also brought to the notice of the University, that various colleges were unauthorisedly collecting money from the students and furthermore these colleges do not have sufficient infrastructure. The teachers are not appointed through properly constituted selection committee, and the persons not having requisite qualification prescribed by the U.G.C. are appointed as teachers.
7 The case of the petitioner is that there was no response from the respondents to the representation filed by the petitioner. 8 In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to follow U.G.C. Regulations 2009 on the following grounds; (1) That the U.G.C. by virtue of power vested under Sec.12 of the U.G.C. Act, is bound to take steps for promotion and coordination of University education and under Sec.26 of the Act, it has statutory duty to frame regulations having statutory force of law. (2) The respondents No.2 to 5 were bound by the Regulations framed by the U.G.C. making statutory in nature and are duty bound to implement those regulations. (3) That number of colleges did not comply with U.G.C. Regulations and that the colleges are functioning without basic infrastructure and without qualified teachers. (4) That the respondents have no jurisdiction to give further affiliation to the colleges who have failed to comply with U.G.C. regulations.
9 In support of the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition, the reliance has been placed on the judgment of this court in I.Elangovan vs The Thiruvalluvar University and 9 others [2007-3 L.W.755] wherein it was held as under: "9. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the first respondent-University contended that the writ itself was not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge an Agenda placed before a meeting of the Syndicate and that since the petitioner had not filed the present writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, he was not entitled to maintain the writ petition without seeking a relief for himself. But the said contention is far from convincing. The petitioner is an Academician. He is a member of the Academic Council of the University and the Vice President of the Association of the University Teachers and the Secretary of Thiruvalluvar University Co-ordination Council. In para-3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that he is one of the ten teachers elected to the Academic Council of the University on 23.9.2006 and that from among the ten Academic Council members, two persons are due to be elected to the Syndicate. The schedule for the election to the Syndicate had already been notified and the last date for filing the nomination was 30.10.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the schedule for election to the Syndicate has already been announced, the University ought not to have brought the matter for the consideration of the Syndicate. The petitioner has filed his nomination and if such a person is said to have no locus standi to question the action of the University, I fail to understand who else will be entitled to question the same. Merely because the petitioner did not describe the writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, it does not mean that the writ petition ought to be thrown out on the ground that the petitioner was not seeking a relief for himself. As a matter of fact, the case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the University Syndicate which is supposed to have 14 members, was functioning only with just seven members, out of whom four are ex-officio members and that after announcing an election to the Syndicate from among the members of the Academic Council, the University ought not to have rushed through, with an Agenda to grant retrospective affiliation to respondents 3 to 10. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not seeking a relief for himself."
10 The reading of the judgment shows that this Court did not hold that a member of Senate has right to file a writ petition not concerning his right at all, but on the peculiar facts keeping that the petitioner therein had filed nomination for the election as member of the Syndicate, it was held that the petitioner had the locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Furthermore, the challenge in the said case was to retrospective affiliation of the respondents No.3 to 10 therein, which directly concerned, the petitioner in the said case being the candidate for election to the Syndicate. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner therefore, does not advance the case of the petitioner to contend that the petitioner has the locus standi. It is well settled proposition of law that a decision is an authority for which it actually decides and not what categorically flows from it.
11 This writ petition is totally misconceived. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the U.G.C. (affiliation of colleges by University Regulation) Act, 2009, have a statutory force of law which are binding on the Universities and the colleges. Once there is a law which is binding on the universities and colleges, no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued to direct the University to follow regulation as even in the absence of any such direction, the law is binding on all, whom it is applies.
12 The petitioner if aggrieved by a particular decision can challenge the act of the University by showing his locus standi by pleading the violation of statutory regulation by making out a specific case warranting interference by Court.
13 The allegations in support of the petition are that various colleges are unauthorisedly collecting money from the students and that they do not have sufficient infrastructure. The allegations are also that teachers have not been appointed through properly constituted selection committee. The allegations which are vague and too general in nature, cannot be a ground for the Court to issue a direction as prayed for. The allegations have to be lawful, specific against institution showing particular violation or against teacher who is said to have been selected by a Committee not duly constituted, so as to enable the institution or teacher to rebut the allegations. Needless to add that the said teacher should also be impleaded as a party. 14 This court on the basis of vague averments cannot play with the life of the students, who are studying in colleges. The petition also shows that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the petitioner impleaded respondents No.8 to 18, i.e. different colleges, but without pleading any specific violation against any of these colleges so as to enable the respondents to rebut it.
15 The documents placed on record by way of typed set of papers do not find mention in the pleadings, therefore cannot be looked into, in view of the settled law that evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into.
16 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, [(1988)4 SCC 534] was pleased to lay down as under:
"11. In the writ petitions, the point was taken as an abstract point of law. There was no attempt on the part of the appellants to substantiate the point by pleading relevant facts and producing relevant evidence. It is apparent that there was no material in the writ petitions in support of the contention of the appellants that the impugned acquisition was nothing but a profiteering venture. The contention was not also advanced before the High Court at the hearing of the writ petitions. The facts stated in the said application of the HSIDC do not, in our opinion, support the contention of the appellants. It is true that, as stated in the said application, HSIDC paid a sum of Rs 1.74 crores to HUDA, but nothing turns on that. The land was acquired by the government for the purpose of development and industrialisation. The government can do it itself or through other agencies. In the instant case, the land was acquired at the instance of HUDA and, thereafter, HUDA had transferred the same to HSIDC. It is not that the land was transferred in the same condition as it was acquired. But, we are told by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of HUDA and HSIDC that before transferring, HUDA had made external developments incurring considerable cost and HSIDC in its turn has made various internal developments and in this way the land has been fully developed and made fit for industrialisation. Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for HUDA and HSIDC to the various external developments made by HUDA at a total cost of Rs 1,66,200 per acre before it was transferred to HSIDC and the cost that was incurred for external developments was included in the price. Thus, there was no motive for HUDA to make any profit.
12. The public purpose in question, already noticed, is development and industrialisation of the acquired land. The appellants have not challenged the said public purpose . In the absence of any such challenge, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to contend that the acquisition was merely a profiteering venture by the State Government through HUDA. The appellants will be awarded the market value of the land as compensation by the Collector. If they are dissatisfied with the award they may ask for references to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. If they are still aggrieved, they can file appeals to the High Court and, ultimately, may also come to this Court regarding the amount of compensation. The appellants cannot claim compensation beyond the market value of the land. In such circumstances, we fail to understand how does the question of profiteering come in. Even assuming that HUDA has made some profit, that will not in any way affect the public purpose for which the land was acquired and the acquisition will not be liable for any challenge on that ground.
13. As has been already noticed, although the point as to profiteering by the State was pleaded in the writ petitions before the High Court as an abstract point of law, there was no reference to any material in support thereof nor was the point argued at the hearing of the writ petitions. Before us also, no particulars and no facts have been given in the special leave petitions or in the writ petitions or in any affidavit, but the point has been sought to be substantiated at the time of hearing by referring to certain facts stated in the said application by HSIDC. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit."
17 In the absence of specific pleading against a specific party making out a case, the writ petition on vague unsubstantiated allegations, is not competent, specially when the relief claimed is only to direct the respondents to follow the rules, which even in the absence of directions by this Court, is binding being statutory and violation thereof can give locus standi to the party affected, to challenge the action accordance with law.
18 Consequently, finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.
Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
No cost.