Association Of Management vs The Anna University

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from running, conducting, approving, affiliating Arts and Science Academic Programmes, either by the said respondents or through its constituent, approved, affiliated or autonomous Colleges coming under their ambits, as per the concerned Anna University Acts.

3. It has been stated that the petitioner Association is a society established under the Societies Registration Act, with society No.137 of 1961. The petitioner Association has been functioning for over forty years. The objects of the petitioner Association includes the making of representations to the educational authorities, such as, the Ministry of Education, Government of India, the Universities, both Indian and Foreign, the University Grants Commission, the State Government, the Departments relating to education and other bodies interested in the field of education, in respect of the problems, which are existing and those that may arise, from time to time and to secure the advancement and progress of Colleges and higher education in the country. It also has the object of promoting the interests of the private colleges, to safeguard their respective rights, privileges and liberties and in furtherance thereof, to take such steps as the circumstances may warrant, including the initiation of legal proceedings.

4. It has been further stated that, initially, the University of Madras was established on the 5th of September, 1857, by an Act of the Legislative Council of India. Later, it was consolidated, under the University of Madras Act, 1923, catering to higher education. It has been serving as an affiliating University for Arts and Science, Medical and Engineering Colleges. In the year, 1978, the Anna University Act came to be enacted. Accordingly, the Anna University was set up at Chennai, as a Unitary University, on 4th of September, 1978, catering to Engineering and Technology. The Amendment Act of 2001 made it an affiliating University for the Engineering Colleges in Chennai. It integrated 4 well known technical institutions in the city of Chennai, the oldest of which was the College of Engineering, Guindy, started in the year, 1974. The Anna University was originally called as Perarignar Anna University of Technology. In the month of December, 2001, it was converted into an affiliated University with almost all the engineering colleges in State of Tamil Nadu coming under its fold and it had also absorbed all the six Government Engineering Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu, as its constituent Colleges. Thus, marking a scientific division of Arts and Science Colleges, on the one hand and Engineering and Technology colleges, on the other hand.

5. It has been further stated that the Anna University had expanded into four different universities, namely, the Anna University-Chennai, the Anna University-Coimbatore, the Anna University-Trichirapalli, and the Anna University-Tirunelveli. The Government of Tamil Nadu had established the Anna University-Coimbatore, on 1.2.2007, in accordance with the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006. It has three Government Engineering Colleges, two Government Aided Engineering Colleges and 103 Self Financing Engineering Colleges under its fold. In addition to the existing Colleges, 43 new Engineering Colleges are likely to be started under the Anna University, Coimbatore, for the ensuing academic year. Nearly 75,000 aspiring engineering graduates are studying in these Institutions.

6. It has been further stated that the Anna University, Coimbatore, is a Technical University, coming under the purview of the All India council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Act No.52 of 1987) and it has started to offer a series of programmes in B.Sc. M.Sc. B.B.A. B.C.A. courses, which are not within the list of the All India Council for Technical Education approved courses, both at the University as well as by way of granting affiliation for such programmes at the various Engineering Colleges in the Coimbatore region. It is reported that the Anna University has sanctioned nearly 14,000 seats, under the category of Science Courses, in the various affiliated colleges, for the admissions of the students, in B.Sc., M.Sc., B.B.A., B.C.A. and other such courses.

7. In fact, the Anna University, Coimbatore, had issued an advertisement in a Tamil Daily, on 28.12.2008, inviting candidates to join the said courses to be conducted by the University. The said courses are not approved by the All India Council for Technical Education, though such courses come under the purview of the Arts and Science Colleges of the Bharthiar University. Further, in the website of the Anna University, Coimbatore, it has been shown that the University is offering B.Sc. Chemistry, M.Sc. Biotechnology, M.Sc. Computer Science and M.Sc. visual Communication. Such courses had not been approved by the All India Council for Technical Education, to be run by the Anna University. The said courses can be conducted only by the Arts and Science Colleges, coming under the purview of the Bharathiar University. From the hand book of the All India Council for Technical Education, for the academic year 2008-2009, it has been made clear that the All India Council for Technical Education is restricting its domain only to the courses coming under Engineering, Technology, M.C.A., Architecture, Town Planning, Management, Pharmacy, Hotel Management and Applied Arts and crafts. All other disciplines are outside the domain of the All India Council for Technical Education. Thus, it is clear that the Technical Institutions are not empowered to offer the said courses.

8. It has been further stated that by the intervention of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Syndicate of the Anna University, Coimbatore, had passed a resolution, on 10.4.2008, to the effect that the University would not give affiliation to B.Sc. B.C.A. and M.Sc. courses in the All India Council for Technical Education approved institutions, from the academic year 2008-2009 onwards. While so, the advertisement made by the Anna University in a Tamil Daily, on 28.12.2008, is unacceptable. Further, the All India Council for Technical Education, had allowed many Engineering Institutions to start the Second Shift, from the academic year 2009 onwards. The Anna University, Coimbatore, is liberally sanctioning the intake of the students, without regard to the availability of the available infrastructure and the teaching resources. Similarly, the Anna University, Chennai, is offering non-engineering and non-technical courses, like B.Sc. (Electronic Media), M.Sc. (Electronic Media), both 3 and 5 year integrated programmes, M.Sc. (Maths), M.Sc. (Computer Science), M.Sc. (Visual Communication), M.Sc. (Medical Physics), M.Sc. (Applied Chemistry) and the Anna University, Tirunelveli, is offering M.Sc. (Software Engineering), M.Sc. (Information Technology) and M.Sc. (Computer Technology) programmes.

9. In spite of the representations having been made to the All India Council for Technical Education and to the authorities of the Education Department and the Government of Tamil Nadu, no steps have been taken to curb the Anna University from conducting and affiliating courses, which are not relating to Engineering and which are non-technical in nature. Due to the irregular acts of the Anna University, the science and arts colleges are suffering, seriously.

10. It has been further stated that, as per the statement of the objects and reasons, the Anna Universities have to conduct and affiliate courses, which are either Engineering Courses or technology related courses. Therefore, conducting of Arts and Science courses, either in the Universities or in their affiliated colleges, are beyond the scope of the Anna University Acts, by which the Universities have been established. There is no power vested in the Universities, by their respective enactments, to conduct, to grant affiliation or to approve Arts and Science Programmes and courses, which are conducted by the Arts and Science Colleges, coming within the purview of the University of Madras, Chennai, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Madurai kamaraj University, Madurai and Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli.

11. It has also been stated that there is no power under the All India Council for Technical Education Act and its Regulations, empowering the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct, grant, affiliate or approve Arts and Science Programmes and courses, which are coming within the purview of Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, and such other Universities. It is a clear violation of all norms and standards and guidelines laid down by the All India council for Technical Education for the Technical Universities and its Technical Institutions. It is clear from the Acts, by which the Anna Universities have been created, that the universities have been set up to cater to the needs for Higher Education in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences and to concentrate on Research oriented works in such fields. Neither the Anna Universities Acts, nor its regulations define "Allied Sciences". However, by the principles of statutory interpretation of "ejusdem generis" and "No scittur a sociis", the words "Allied Sciences" can only be taken to mean the subjects relating to Engineering and Technology and it cannot include Arts and Science programmes. Therefore, granting of degrees in Arts and Science Programmes is beyond the ambit and scope of respondents 1 to 3.

12. The colleges of Engineering and Technology and the colleges of Arts and Science are operating in different fields. The Arts and Science Colleges are governed by the different statutes, namely, the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, the statutes of the concerned Universities and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and the Regulations framed thereunder. Whereas the colleges of Engineering and Technology are governed by the concerned Acts of the Technical Universities, like, the Anna Universities Acts. The activities of the Anna universities, which are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, are encroaching on the occupied field of the Bharathiar University. Further, the Anna University, Coimbatore, is offering online distance education programmes in Arts and Science disciplines, without the necessary approval of the Distance Education Council and the Joint Committee of the University Grants Commission and the All India council for Technical Education. As such, the above mentioned unauthorised activities of the Anna Universities are arbitrary in nature and therefore, they are illegal and void.

13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner Association is not maintainable, in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place. The Syndicate of the first respondent University had already passed a resolution, dated 4.7.2008, to approve the recommendations of the three Member Committee and to accord affiliation to B.Sc. and M.Sc. Courses, with certain conditions. In view of the fact that the resolution of the Syndicate, dated 4.7.2008, had not been challenged, the present writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus, is not maintainable in law.

14. It has also been stated that the petitioner Association has no locus standi to file the present writ petition, on behalf of its members. The petitioner Association cannot term itself as an aggrieved person and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. The first respondent University had been established by the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006 (Act No.42 of 2006). It is an affiliated type of University. Apart from the three Government Engineering Colleges and the two Government Engineering Colleges, there are 98 Self Financing Engineering Colleges under the fold of the first respondent University.

15. It has been further stated that section 4 of the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, deals with the powers, functions and objects of the University and they are as follows:

"1. To provide facilities and offer opportunities for Higher Education in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences by instructions, training, research, development and extension and by such other means as the University may deem fit.

2. To provide for research and for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences.

3. To institute degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences."

16. Further, Section 5(1) of the Act empowers the first respondent University to affiliate the colleges providing courses of study or training in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences. Thus, the first respondent University is empowered to offer the courses in the field of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences and also to affiliate colleges conducting such courses. Further, there is no provision in the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, prohibiting the first respondent University from offering courses in the field of Allied Sciences and from granting affiliation to colleges offering such courses. The B.Sc., M.Sc., B.B.A. and B.C.A. courses offered by the various affiliated colleges are related to the field of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences. The syllabi, course study and the training provided in the said courses are much higher in standard. The courses offered are not the routine degree courses offered by the Arts and Science colleges. Further, it cannot be contended that the first respondent University cannot conduct the courses, which do not find a place in the list of the approved nomenclature of courses of the All India council for Technical Education. The courses are conducted by the Anna University and its affiliated colleges, only in accordance with the powers available in the Act.

17. It has been further stated that the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, has been enacted to exercise supervisory control, for maintenance of standards in the Technical Institutions. Section 2(h) of the said Act defines "Technical Institution" as an Institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of Technical Education. As such, the regulations of the All India council for Technical Education cannot be binding upon a University, which is created under a statute. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the first respondent University is not empowered to conduct the courses which do not come within the ambit and scope of the Act.

18. It is only the All India Council for Technical Education, which is to make a decision as to whether the courses offered by the first respondent University would be a technical or non-technical course. The petitioner Association cannot question the decision of the first respondent University to conduct or affiliate such courses. In fact, the All India Council for Technical Education has approved the inclusion of M.B.A. and M.C.A. courses in their approved list of Technical courses. Therefore, the bachelor degree, in B.B.A. and B.C.A. courses, cannot be said to be non-technical in nature. Even if the courses do not find a place in the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, the first respondent University can offer such courses, in accordance with the provisions of the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006. The letter of the All India Council for Technical Education, dated 30.5.1996, states that the issue regarding the approval of B.Sc., M.Sc. (Computer Science) courses may be taken up before the concerned affiliating University and the State Government. The letter of the All India Council for Technical Education makes it clear that its regulations cannot be enforced against the University, insofar as it relates to approval of courses.

19. It has been further submitted that the University Grants Commission does not prohibit or prevent the University from offering courses, which are within the objects of the Acts, under which the respective Universities have been created.

20. It has been further stated that the Syndicate of the first respondent University, during its meeting held, on 29.3.2008, vide its resolution No.3.11.7.2 had resolved not to give affiliation to B.Sc., B.C.A. and M.Sc. courses, in the All India Council for Technical Education approved institutions, in the University area, from the academic year 2008-2009. In the meantime, the member-Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, vide his letter, dated 1.4.2008, had stated that B.Sc-I.T. Courses should be offered only by the Arts and Science Universities and therefore, such courses should not be offered in the colleges affiliated to the Anna University. However, by the proceedings, dated 8.4.2008, the first respondent University had informed the member-Secretary about the resolution passed by the Syndicate of the first respondent University.

21. It has been further stated that pursuant to the resolution, dated 29.3.2008, various affiliated colleges had submitted representations stating that they have been conducting B.Sc. and M.Sc. programmes in the field of allied sciences and some of the affiliated colleges have been conducting the programmes even before the formation of the All India council for Technical Education. Therefore, the said colleges had requested the first respondent University to approve and affiliate B.Sc. and M.Sc. programmes offered in the Engineering Colleges, for the academic year 2008-2009 and for the subsequent academic years. Considering the said representations a three Member Committee was constituted. The Committee, after due deliberations, had recommended that all B.Sc. and M.Sc. Courses, except B.Sc., (Computer Science, I.T. and Visual Communication) and B.C.A., may be considered for the grant of affiliation by the first respondent University. The recommendation of the Committee had been placed before the Syndicate, during its fourth meeting, held on 28.5.2008. During the meeting held, on 28.5.2008, the members of the syndicate had expressed their opinion that the affiliation, as requested by the colleges, can be granted. Finally, by a resolution NO.4.11.7.1., the Syndicate had resolved to represent the matter, along with the views of the syndicate, to the State Government to obtain its decision. Accordingly, the resolution of the Syndicate was communicated to the State Government, on 30.5.2008. The State Government, by its letter, dated 1.7.2008, had stated that the matter may be placed before the Syndicate for its further decision.

22. In view of the urgency involved, the matter was placed before the Syndicate for its further consideration, by circulation. The syndicate had resolved to approve the recommendations of the three Member Committee and to accord affiliation to B.Sc. and M.Sc. Courses, in the affiliated colleges, subject to the following conditions:

"1. The institutions shall offer a maximum of only 5 courses to the students each in B.Sc.,/M.Sc., out of the list (annexure) selecting not more than 3 courses either B.Sc., or M.Sc.

2. Separate infrastructure facilities shall be created and faculty to be appointed exclusively for conducting the B.Sc/M.Sc. program.

3. To phase out B.Sc/M.Sc courses from 2013-14 onwards."

23. It has been further stated that by a letter, dated 10.4.2008, the resolution of the Syndicate, dated 29.3.2008, had been communicated to all the affiliated Engineering Colleges. It is incorrect to say that the first respondent University had passed the resolution, dated 10.4.2008, stating that it would not grant affiliation to B.Sc., B.C.A. and M.Sc. Courses, in the All India Council for Technical Education approved institutions, from the academic year 2008-2009. The allegation of the petitioner that the first respondent university had liberally sanctioned a large number of seats for the courses, which have been started in the affiliated colleges, without regard to the availability of infrastructure and teaching resources, is misconceived. On the contrary, the resolution had been passed by the Syndicate, only on the condition that sufficient infrastructure facilities shall be created for conducting the B.Sc. and M.Sc. programmes. Further, the claim made by the petitioner that the admission of students in Arts and Science Colleges, located in Coimbatore area, have been seriously affected, is not sustainable.

24. It has been further stated that the first respondent University has been conducting various courses and granting affiliation for such courses, only in accordance with the objects and powers conferred under the Anna university, Coimbatore Act, 2006. The said courses affiliated by the first respondent University are related to the field of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences. No norms or guidelines had been prescribed by the all India Council for Technical Education, for the affiliation of the courses. Further, the All India Council for Technical Education does not possess the power to lay down the norms and the guidelines for the affiliation of the courses.

25. It has been further stated that the definition of "Allied Sciences" would include all subjects allied or related to Engineering and Technology. Since the courses in question, which are conducted by the first respondent University and its affiliated colleges, come within the ambit of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences and since the first respondent University is empowered, under the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, to conduct, affiliate and approve courses, to provide for instructions, training and for dissemination of knowledge in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences, the claims made by the petitioner are devoid of merits.

26. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner Association is not maintainable. The petitioner Association has no locus standi to file the writ petition on behalf of its members.

27. It has been further stated that the Anna University was originally established as a unitary University, by the Anna University Act, 1978. Later, by the Anna University (Amendment) Act, 2001, it was empowered to affiliate colleges within the University area.

28. Section 3 (1) of the Anna University Act, 1978, dealing with the establishment of the university, reads as follows:

"(1). For the development of engineering, technology and allied sciences and for furthering the advancement of learning and prosecution of research in engineering, technology and allied sciences, on and from the appointed day, there shall be established a University by the name of Anna University."

29. Section 4 of the Anna University Act, 1978, deals with the object of the University, where it has been categorically stated that the objects of the University includes the providing of facilities, the creating of Opportunities, devising and implementing the various programmes of education and to further the advancement of knowledge in the fields of engineering, technology and allied sciences.

30. Section 5 (ac) of the Act empowers the University to affiliate the colleges. The Anna University Act, 1978, does not contain any prohibitory section or clause, which would prevent it from offering courses in the fields of Engineering, technology and allied sciences or from granting affiliation to the colleges offering such courses.

31. It has been further stated that the Act has been established to exercise supervisory control for maintenance of standards in Technical Institutions. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines "technical institution" as an institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of Technical Education. It is incorrect to state that the University is not empowered to conduct the courses, which do not come within the ambit and scope of the Act and the list of approved nomenclature of courses. As long as the Act empowers the University to offer and to conduct courses, it cannot be questioned on the sole ground that such courses do not find a place in the approved nomenclature of the courses of the All India council for Technical Education.

32. Merely for the reason that the second respondent University offers courses which do not come within the purview of the All India council for Technical Education, it cannot be said that it cannot offer or conduct such courses. However, it is for the All India council for Technical Education to decide, if it is within its powers to include or not to include any course, depending on the nature of the course and to decide whether the course would fall under the technical category or under the non-technical category. The petitioner Association cannot be permitted to question the offer of the second respondent University to conduct the courses or the affiliation granted by the second respondent University for such courses being conducted in its affiliated colleges.

33. It has been further stated that in the approved nomenclature of courses, approved by the All India Council for Technical Education, both M.C.A. (Master in Computer Application) and M.B.A. (Master in Business Administration) courses had been included. Even, according to the petitioner, they would qualify to be coming under the category of technical courses. As such, the Bachelor Degrees in the same courses, namely, B.B.A and B.C.A., cannot be categorised as non-technical courses. Even if certain courses do not come under the fold of the All India Council for Technical Education, it cannot be said that the University does not have the power to offer or conduct such courses. Further, the University Grants Commission Act does not prohibit or prevent the University from offering the courses, which are within the object and ambit of the enactment, under which the Universities have been created.

34. The role of the All India Council for Technical Education, in respect of the Universities, is only advisory and recommendatory in nature. No norms or guidelines have been laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education for the Universities to follow, with regard to the affiliation of courses. The Universities are to follow the provisions of the respective University enactments, which would be applicable to them.

35. It has also been stated that the second respondent University is conducting or granting affiliation to the courses, only in accordance with the objectives of the Act, in respect of the fields of the Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences. The averments of the petitioner that there is a Scientific Division of Arts and Science programmes, in respect of the Engineering and the Technical programmes and that the second respondent is interfering with such division, are incorrect. The claim of the petitioner that the courses conducted by the second respondent University are Arts and Science courses had been denied. Further, there is no encroachment of the occupied field of the Bharathiar University Act, as claimed by the petitioner. In fact, the respondent Universities are empowered to affiliate the colleges and to provide for instructions, training, research and for dissemination of knowledge and to award degrees, Diplomas and other academic distinctions, in Engineering, Technology and allied sciences. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

36. Mr.P.Haridass, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, had submitted that the Anna University, Coimbatore, was established under the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, with the view to ensure better and effective monitoring of the Engineering Colleges, which are situated in the area coming under the said Act. The necessity for establishing the Anna University, Coimbatore, arose, as it was realised that it was difficult for the Anna University, Chennai, to manage the affairs of 240 colleges situated in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu had decided to establish three more Technical Universities, with clearly demarcated areas of jurisdiction. Accordingly, three universities were established at Coimbatore, Tiruchirapalli and Tirunelveli. Contrary to the statement of objects and reasons of the enactment, the first respondent University had started conducting and granting affiliation to Arts and Science courses, which do not come under its purview. Similarly, the second and third respondent Universities are also offering courses, which do not come within their purview, in accordance with the Acts, under which they were established.

37. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further contended that there is no power vested, either in the Anna University Act, 1978 or the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006 or the Anna University, Tirunelveli Act, to conduct, grant, affiliate or approve Arts and Science programmes and courses, which are courses conducted by the Arts and Science Colleges coming within the purview of the University of Madras, Chennai, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Madurai Kamraj University, Madurai and Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli. Thus, it is clear that the respondents 1 to 3 are encroaching on the areas covered by the other Universities, without having the jurisdiction to do so and without having the sanction of law.

38. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further contended that there is no power under the All India Council for Technical Education and its Regulations permitting the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct, grant, affiliate or approve Arts and Science Programmes and courses, which are normally conducted by the Arts and Science Colleges. The introduction of Arts and Science programmes and courses in its campus at Coimbatore and in its affiliated, approved, constituent and autonomous colleges, by the first respondent University and the introduction of such courses in the second and third respondent Universities, is a clear violation of the norms and standards and the guidelines laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education. It amounts to unapproved and unauthorised interference in the scientific division of Arts and Science subjects on the one hand and the Engineering and Technical programmes on the other hand. The introduction of such courses in the Universities, by the respondents 1 to 3 is contrary to the various recommendations of the committees constituted with regard to Higher Education.

39. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further contended that the Anna Universities, which were established to cater to the needs of Higher Education in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences, including research oriented programmes, cannot be permitted to conduct under graduate programmes in Arts and Sciences. In doing so, the main purpose of the establishment of the Technical Universities has been defeated. The terms "Allied Sciences" have not been defined in the Anna Universities Acts or in any other statute or regulations. Since there is no clear definition, the terms should be interpreted using the principles of "ejusdem generis" and "No scittur a sociis". The terms can only mean and refer to the programmes and courses, which have a direct relation to the disciplines of Engineering and Technology. The objects of the Technical Universities are clear. They have to provide the facilities and offer opportunities for Higher Education in Engineering and Technology and Allied Sciences and to devise and implement programmes for further advancement of knowledge in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences. Therefore, starting, granting of approval and affiliation for Arts and Science programmes and courses would be alien to the purposes for which the technical universities had been established.

40. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further contended that the Colleges and Institutions, which are seeking affiliation for its academic programmes, should obtain the approval of the All India Council For Technical Education, as per the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act. Further, a combined reading of the Act and its Regulations and the provisions of the Anna Universities Acts, makes it clear that the respondents 1 to 3 are not empowered to commence Arts and Science courses in the respective Universities and in the affiliated colleges and Institutes. It is clear that Arts and Science courses are not Technical courses, as defined in the hand book issued by the All India Council for Technical Education, for the academic year 2008-2009.

41. It has also been contended that the Anna Universities and their affiliated Colleges and Institutes are expected to operate in a separate field, while the colleges and Institutes coming under the jurisdiction of the other Universities would operate in a different field. The Arts and Science colleges would be governed by certain statutes and regulations, which are different from those which govern the Anna Universities Acts. The starting of the non-technical courses by the Anna Universities and the approval of such courses in its affiliated colleges and institutions would amount to encroachment of the "Occupied Field" of the Bharathiar University. Further, the offering of online and distance education programmes in Arts and Science disciplines, by the Anna University, Coimbatore, is without the approval of the joint committee of the University Grants Commission, the All India Council for Technical Education and the Distance Education Council. Therefore, the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in conducting the courses, which are non-technical in nature, would be contrary to the Anna Universities Acts and therefore, it is invalid in the eye of law.

42. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the main issue to be resolved in the present writ petition would depend on the query as to whether a university, such as the Anna university, established to conduct and affiliate courses and programmes relating to Engineering and Technology, can grant permission to its affiliated colleges to start and to conduct courses and programmes in Arts and Sciences.

43. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had traced the background in which the Anna Universities had been established. He had also pointed out the objects of the Anna University Act, 1978, which states that the University has been established to provide facilities and to offer opportunities for Higher Education in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences and to devise and implement programmes of education in Engineering, Technology and Allied sciences that is relevant to the current needs of the society and to further the advancement of knowledge in Engineering, Technology and Allied sciences and to prosecute and promote research, to disseminate and advance the knowledge thereon, for the betterment of the society. He had also enumerated the powers and functions of the university.

44. It was further contended that the Anna University, that was, originally, established had expanded into four different Universities, namely, the Anna University, Chennai, the Anna University-Coimbatore, the Anna University-Tiruchirapalli and the Anna University-Tirunelveli. The Anna University-Coimbatore is an affiliated type of University established by the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, (Tamil Nadu Act No.42 of 2006), the Government of Tamil Nadu had established the Anna University, Coimbatore, on 1.2.2007. Anna University has three Government Engineering Colleges, two Government Aided Engineering Colleges and 103 Self Financing Engineering Colleges. Further, 43 new Engineering Colleges are expected to be started by the Anna University, Coimbatore, in the ensuing academic year. There are about 75,000 aspiring engineering graduates, who would be studying in the engineering colleges.

45. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further contended that the All India Council for Technical Education approved nomenclature of courses published in the All India council for Technical Education hand book, for the academic year 2008-2009, restricts its domain to the courses coming under Engineering and Technology to M.C.A. Architecture, Town Planning, Management, Pharmacy, Hotel Management and Applied Arts and crafts only. All other disciplines are outside the domain of All India council for Technical Education. As such, the Universities and technical institutions are not empowered to offer other courses. When the Anna University attempted to introduce the new courses other than those which have been approved by the All India council for Technical Education, the Bharathiar University had raised the issue with the State Government stating that the starting of new courses by the Anna Universities, without the approval of the All India council for Technical Education, would infringe its rights, as it is in violation of the conditions and norms prescribed by the All India council for Technical Education and the decision of the Syndicate of the Anna University. Further, it would be greatly affecting the admission of students in Arts and Science colleges, as the students would be impelled to join the courses offered by the Anna Universities. While the affiliated colleges were charging more than Rs.1,00,000/- as fees, the Arts and Science colleges are charging only the fees specified by the competent authorities.

46. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further contended that, while the teachers appointed by the Anna University are not subject to approval on the basis of their qualifications, the appointment of teaching staff by the Arts and Science Colleges have to be approved by the concerned university, on the basis of the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission and the other regulations applicable to them.

47. It was further contended that the terms 'Allied Sciences' would only mean those subjects which are akin to subjects relating to Engineering and Technology, in accordance with the maxim 'No scittur a sociis'. The meaning of the words is to be judged by the company it keeps. Therefore, the question arises as to whether a Technical University, like the Anna University can conduct courses and give affiliation for courses like B.B.A., B.C.A., B.Sc., B.B.M., etc. which would not fall under the meaning of 'Allied Sciences'. Since the field occupied by a Central Act, like the All India Council for Technical Education Act cannot be encroached upon by the State enactments, like the Anna Universities Acts.

48. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also contended that since the Anna Universities Acts are a creature of a state legislature, under Entry 25 of List III of the VII schedule of the Constitution of India and the All India Council for Technical Education Act is an act of the Parliament, under Entry 66 of the list, there cannot be any repugnancy between them. If there is such repugnancy, the Central legislation would prevail over the State legislation.

49. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further stated that since there is no resolution by the Academic council of the Anna University recommending the starting of such courses, which do not fall under the category of 'Allied Sciences', the Anna Universities cannot have the power or jurisdiction to aid in the commencement of such courses.

50. The learned counsel had further stated that the Anna University, Coimbatore, had also started correspondence courses, which has further caused serious harm to the colleges, which are the members of the petitioner Association.

51. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, the learned counsel for the first respondent, had submitted that the petitioner Association has not furnished sufficient particulars, regarding its members, in order to show as to how its members are adversely affected due to the offer of certain courses by the respondents 1 to 3 and by the approval for conducting such courses in its affiliated Colleges and Institutes. There are no specific averments regarding the actual prejudice caused to the colleges. Therefore, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner Association is liable to be dismissed in limini.

52. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had further contended that the All India Council for Technical Education Act provides for fixing standards and norms in respect of the Technical Education, as defined in section 2(g) of the Act. Section 2 (g) of the Act deals only with the disciplines of Engineering and Technology. The All India Council for Technical Education has no jurisdiction in respect of 'Allied Sciences'. The Anna University, coimbatore Act, 2006 (Act 42 of 2006) has been enacted in exercise of the powers vested in entry 25 of list III of the Constitution of India.

53. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had further contended that Section 4 of the Anna University, Coimbatore Act 2006, prescribes that the University shall provide facilities and offer opportunities for Higher Education in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences, by instructions, training, development and extension and by such other means as the university may deem fit and to provide for research and advancement and dissemination of knowledge in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences and to institute degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctions in the fields of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences. Accordingly, the Anna Universities can conduct courses, which come under the definition of 'Allied Sciences' and they can also affiliate colleges to conduct courses in Allied Sciences.

54. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had further contended that, as long as there is no challenge to the power or the competence of the State to enact a law empowering the Anna Universities to commence and to approve certain courses such a privilege vested in the Universities would be valid in the eye of law. Further, it is clear that the Anna Universities Acts empower the concerned Universities to conduct courses and to grant affiliation to colleges to conduct the courses relating to 'Allied Sciences'. The Act does not prohibit the Universities from offering courses other than those defined under Section 2(g) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act.

55. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent had further submitted that it is incorrect to contend that the Anna Universities can only offer courses approved by the All India Council for Technical Education. There is no such prohibition either in the All India Council for Technical Education Act or the Anna Universities Acts. There is no doubt that the All India Council for Technical Education Act is only concerned with the maintenance of standards in Technical Education and it is not concerned with 'Allied Sciences'.

56. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had further contended that there is no repugnancy between the All India Council for Technical Education Act and the Anna Universities Acts. The All India Council for Technical Education Act does not deal with 'Allied Sciences'. Therefore, it cannot be said that it occupies the whole field, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The theory of Occupied Field has been rejected by the Supreme Court in its decisions reported in STATE OF T.N. Vs. S.V.BRATHEEP (2004) 4 SCC 513) and in GOVERNMENT OF A.P. Vs. J.B.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2005) 3 SCC 212).

57. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had further stated that once it is accepted that the State Legislature had validly enacted the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, the petitioner cannot contend that the first respondent does not have the power to conduct courses in 'Allied Sciences' and to approve such courses being conducted by its affiliated Colleges and Institutions. As the Syndicate of the Anna University had passed the resolution on the basis of the recommendations of an expert body, it cannot be said that the resolution is arbitrary and invalid. The expert body had opined that the courses listed in the annexure to their recommendations had a high technology content. Therefore, it was clear that the Engineering Colleges were better equipped in 'Allied Sciences', as compared to the Arts and Science colleges coming under the jurisdiction of the other Universities.

58. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had further contended that the syndicate of the first respondent University had passed the resolution, on 4.7.2008, based on the recommendations of the Committee. Since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said resolution and as the provisions of the Anna Universities Acts had not been challenged by the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner for a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from conducting certain courses is not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

59. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent University had stated that the All India Council for Technical Education Act does not cover the entire field of education. It is not a complete code in itself. There are areas, which are not covered by the said Act. The subjects coming under the terms 'Allied Sciences' are not covered by the Act. Therefore, there is no repugnancy, insofar as the present case is concerned. Since the petitioner Association has no locus standi to question the powers and the jurisdiction of the Anna Universities, the present writ petition is not maintainable in law.

60. Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, had submitted that the petitioner Association is not entitled to file a writ petition on behalf of its members, since the averments and allegations in the writ petition do not concern the Association, as such.

61. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondent had further contended that, as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Anna University Act, 1978, relating to the objects of the University, the university is empowered to conduct the courses in Engineering, Technology and Allied sciences. By virtue of the powers conferred on the University, it is conducing B.E., B.Tech. and other Allied Science courses, including M.sc. and M.B.A. and M.C.A. courses. It is also granting affiliation to Science Courses in colleges, which are affiliated to the said Universities.

62. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had further contended that the contention of the petitioner, that the respondents 1 to 3 are conducting courses, which are not in the list of courses for which the approval is granted by the All India Council for Technical Education and that the said courses are to be conducted only in Arts and Science colleges, is untenable and unsustainable in law.

63. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondent had further contended that the All India Council for Technical Education Act does not, in any manner, prohibit the Universities established under the enactments of the State Legislature from conducting courses which are permissible under the enactments by which the universities had been established. As such, the courses are permissible, in accordance with the objects and reasons of the respective Acts. The petitioner is not entitled to challenge the power of the Universities, merely on the ground that the students are not willing to seek admissions in Arts and Science Colleges conducting such courses. The Supreme Court, in its decision in BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AIR 2001 S.C.2861), has categorically held that the Regulations of the All India Council for Technical Education cannot be enforced against or bind the Universities to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course or programme in Technical Education, either in the University or in its Department or in the constituent Institutions. while so, it is incorrect to contend that the Universities are not empowered to conduct the courses, which do not come within the ambit and scope of the Act and the list of approved nomenclature of courses by the All India Council for Technical Education. As such, the courses that are to be conducted by the universities and the courses that are affiliated by the universities do not come under the purview of the All India Council for Technical Education Act.

64. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondent had further submitted that the averments made by the petitioner proceeds on the basis that since the All India Council for Technical Education list of approved courses do not contain the courses affiliated by the universities, it is impermissible for the Universities to conduct and affiliate the same. Such averments made on behalf of the petitioner are contrary to the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act and the Anna Universities Acts. The contentions of the petitioner, that the B.C.A. and B.B.A. courses are not technical courses, and therefore, the universities are not entitled to conduct and affiliate the same, is unsustainable.

65. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondent had further contended that the contention that the Universities can conduct M.C.A. and M.B.A. courses on the ground that they find a place in the All India Council for Technical Education list of approved courses and that the Bachelor Degree in the same subject conducted as B.B.A. and B.C.A. courses would not qualify as technical courses coming under the purview of the Universities Acts are contradictory in nature.

66. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondent had further contended that the petitioner has not challenged the power or authority of the Universities to conduct 'Allied Science' courses. Further, it has not been pleaded that the courses conducted by the Universities and the affiliated colleges are relating to Arts and that they are not related to 'Allied Sciences'. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the decision of the Universities in conducting such courses and in approving such courses in affiliated colleges and Institutions.

67. The learned counsel had further contended that as per the provisions of the Anna Universities Acts, the Academic Council and the Syndicate are vested with the powers to conduct and affiliate courses, in furtherance of the object with which the Universities had been established.

68. The learned counsel had further submitted that since the conducting and the affiliating of the Allied Science courses are in accordance with the provisions of the Universities Acts, the prayer in the writ petition is not maintainable. The academic councils of the Anna Universities are empowered to perform, in accordance with the provisions of the Anna Universities Acts. The power of the Universities do not depend on the All India Council for Technical Education Act.

69. The learned counsel had further contended that it is not the case of the petitioner that the academic council of the Anna University had acted beyond the scope and powers of the Anna Universities Acts. Unless the specific provisions of the Acts are challenged, the petitioner would not be entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Anna University, Chennai and the Anna University, Coimbatore, are conducting Arts courses. The petitioner has not specifically pointed out as to which are the courses that the Anna Universities cannot conduct. As long as the petitioner has not challenged the recommendations of the Academic Council and the approval granted by the Syndicate of the Anna Universities, they cannot pray for a writ of Mandamus, as in the present case.

70. Mr.N.Muralikumaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, had contended that the respondents 1 to 3 cannot contend that the Universities cannot be regulated by the All India Council for Technical Education, in accordance with the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act. The intention behind the enactment of the Act is to sponsor a coordinated development in the system of Technical Education in India. The power to inspect the Universities had been given to the All India Council for Technical Education, under Section 11 of the Act, which is as follows:

"(1) For the purposes of ascertaining the financial needs of a technical institution or a University or its standards of teaching examination and research, the Council may cause an inspection of any department or departments of such technical institution or University to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and by such person or persons as it may direct.

(2) The Council shall communicate to the technical institution or University the date on which any inspection under sub-section (1) is to be made and the technical institution or University shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) The Council shall communicate to the technical institution or the University, its views in regard to the results of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of that technical institution or University, recommended to that institution or University the action to be taken as a result of such inspection.

(4) All communications to a technical institution or University under this section shall be made to the executive authority thereof and the executive authority of the technical institution or University shall report to the Council the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purpose of implementing any such recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3)."

71. In fact, the functions of the Council have been enumerated under section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows:

"10. Functions of the Council: It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring co-ordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may:-

(e) The scope of Sections 10(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n), (q), (r),(u), does not confine it only to technical institutions but it is also applicable to Universities.

(f) Only Section 10(m), (p) & (s) and the first part of Section 10(k) is restricted to Technical Institutions.

(g) It is submitted that the words "AND" found in Section 10(k) should be read disjunctively and therefore it is clear that the Parliament intended that only for starting of technical institutions, approval is not required to be obtained from the All India Council for Technical Education which is a natural consequence as Universities could be created by Parliamentary and State Enactments.

(h) A joint reading of Section 10(g) where the words "Universities" is specifically used along with the Section 11 in the light of the objects of the All India Council for Technical Education enactment, in view of the non restricting of the powers of the All India Council for Technical Education only to technical institutions in Section 10 which is as follows:

Sections 10(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n), (q), (r),(u) which are extracted as under:

10(a) Undertake survey in the various fields of technical education, collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the needed growth and development in technical education;

(b) co-ordinated the development of technical education in the country at all levels;

(d) promote innovations, research and development in established and new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new, technologies to meet developmental requirements and for overall improvement of educational processes;

(e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education for women handicapped and weaker sections of the society;

(f) promote an effective link between technical education system and other relevant systems including research and development organisations, industry and the community.

(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education, incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability.

(h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of teachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new centres for offering staff development programmes including continuing education of teachers.

(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations.

(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees;

(l) advice the Central Government in respect of grant of character to any professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for the promotion of such profession in its field including conduct of examination and awarding of membership certificates.

(n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialization of technical education;

(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses, programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council;

(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations and to set up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the Council's responsibilities and to create positions of professional, technical and supporting staff based on requirements.

(u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to make recommendation to it, or to the Council or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or derecognition of the institution or the programme."

72. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had further contended that the provisions of the Act makes it clear that the Universities are bound to follow the norms and standards laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education. While enacting the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, it would not have been the intention of the Tamil Nadu State Government to create a parallel University to carry on the same functions as that of the Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore. Therefore, Anna University, Coimbatore, cannot give affiliation to courses in Engineering and Technology, in the absence of the necessary approval from the All India Council for Technical Education. By merely changing the nomenclature, Anna University, Coimbatore, cannot permit Colleges to run technical courses without the necessary approval from the All India Council for Technical Education.

73. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had further contended that it is apparent from the decision made both by the Syndicate of Anna University and the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education that the courses offered by the Anna University, Coimbatore, do not fall under its purview. Therefore, the courses offered by the Anna University, Coimbatore, which are not approved by the All India Council for Technical Education, do not fall under the purview of the said University.

74. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent had further contended that the All India Council for Technical Education can regulate the standards of education in the courses commenced by the respondent Universities. The Universities, like the Anna Universities, need not get the prior approval from the the All India Council for Technical Education, before commencing the courses. The academic council and the syndicate of the universities concerned have the powers to decide the courses to be conducted by the Universities and the affiliated colleges and Institutions.

75. Ms.N.Kavitha, the learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent had adopted the arguments adduced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

76. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions.

76.1. In ROHIT PULP AND PAPER MILLS LTD., Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (1990 (47) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.), the Supreme Court had held as follows:

10.The principle of statutory interpretation by which a generic word receives a limited interpretation by reason of its context is well established. In the context with which we are concerned, we can legitimately draw upon the noscitur a sociis principle. This expression simply means that the meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps. Gajendragadkar, J. explained the scope of the rule in State v. Hosptial Mazdoor Sabha (1960-2 S.C.R.866) in the following words:

This rule, according to Maxwell, means that, when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take as it were their colour from each other, that is, the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less general. The same rule is thus interpreted in Words and Phrases (Vo. XIV, p. 207): Associated words take their meaning from one another under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the philosophy of which is that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is broader than the maxim Ejusdem Generis. In fact the latter maxim is only an illustration or specific application of the broader maxim noscitur a sociis. The argument is that certain essential features or attributes are invariably associated with the words business and trade as understood in the popular and conventional sense, and it is the colour of these attributes which is taken by the other words used in the definition though their normal import may be much wider. We are not impressed by this argument. It must be borne in mind that noscitur a sociis is merely a rule of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where it is clear that the wider words have been deliberately used in order to make the scope of the defined word correspondingly wider. It is only where the intention of the legislature in associating wider words with words of narrower significance is doubtful, or otherwise not clear that the present rule of construction can be usefully applied. It can also be applied where the meaning of the words of wider import is doubtful; but, where the object of the legislature in using wider words is clear and free of ambiguity, the rule of construction in question cannot be pressed into service. This principle has been applied in a number of contexts in judicial decisions where the court is clear in its mind that the larger meaning of the word in question could not have been intended in the context in which it has been used. The cases are too numerous to need discussion here. It should be sufficient to refer to one of them by way of illustration. In Rainbow Steels Ltd. v. CST (981-2 S.C.C.141) this Court had to understand the meaning of the word old in the context of an entry in a taxing traffic which read thus:

Old, discarded, unserviceable or obsolete machinery, stores or vehicles including waste products...... Though the tariff item started with the use of the wide word old, the Court came to the conclusion that in order to fall within the expression old machinery occurring in the entry, the machinery must be old machinery in the sense that it has become non-functional or non-usable. In other words, not the mere age of the machinery, which would be relevant in the wider sense, but the condition of the machinery analogous to that indicated by the words following it, was considered relevant for the purposes of the statute."

76.2. In GUJARAT UNIVERSITY Vs. SHRI KRISHNA (AIR 1963 SC 703) the Supreme Court, while discussing the various aspects relating to the powers of the University concerned to prescribe the medium of instruction in affiliated institutions, had held that the statements of objects and reasons of a statute may and do often furnish valuable historical material in ascertaining the reasons, which induced the Legislature to enact a statute but in interpreting the statute they must be ignored.

76.3. In STATE OF T.N. Vs. ADHIYAMAN EDU. & RESEARCH INSTITUTE (1995) 4 SCC 104), the Supreme Court had held that in case of repugnancy between the legislation made by the Parliament and that made by State legislature on a subject covered by list III of schedule VII of the constitution of India, the former shall prevail and to that extent the latter, shall be void unless it is saved by Article 254 (2). Whether the State Law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case.

76.4. In JAYA GOKUL EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY (2000 (III) CTC 165), the Supreme Court had held that the policy decision taken by the Government of Kerala State not to sanction any affiliation to start private colleges is illegal and void. The state Government could not have any 'policy' outside the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. The Kerala University cannot impose any condition in consistent with the Act.

76.5. In BHARATI VIDYAPEETH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2004) 11 SCC 755) the Supreme Court had held as follows:

The expression coordination used in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It will include power to do all things, which are necessary to prevent what would make coordination either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given full effect according to its plain and express intention. Within the concepts of coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, the entire gamut of admission will fall. Therefore, if any aspect of admission of students in colleges would fall within Entry 66, the power to legislate in regard to those aspects are entirely carved out of the subject of education and vested in Parliament and it falls outside the control of the provisions of Entry 25 of List III.

76.6. In BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AIR 2001 S.C.2861), the Supreme Court had held as follows:

"The appellant University created under the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981, is not required to seek prior approval of the All India Council for the Technical Education (AICTE) to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the University itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection. It is a full-fledged University recognised by the University Grants Commission also. The definition of 'technical institution' contained in S.2(h) of AICTE Act excludes from its purview a university. When by definition a university is excluded from a technical institution, to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression technical institution occurs will include a university will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein. The power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned is covered by Section 10(k) does not cover a university but only a technical institution. If Section 10(k) does not cover a university but only a technical institution, a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institution to apply for universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a university and a technical institution."

76.7. In SADAKATHULLAH APPA COLLEGE Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, (2004 (1) CTC 1), the Division Bench of this Court, while discussing the scope and powers of the All India Council for Technical Education, had held as follows:

"15. Even if it were possible to entertain any doubt with regard to the scope of the term "technical", one must accept the view of an expert body like the AICTE with regard to what is technical, and falls within the purview of it's jurisdiction, the Council having been entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the co-ordinated development of technical education system and promoting the qualitative improvement therein.

21. Thus, the scope of the Council's power is vast. It includes every facet of technical education in the country. It enables the Council to do everything that is required to achieve the objects for which it was formed, namely the development of technical education system in the country and the qualitative improvement thereof. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, it is not possible to accept the submission that the Act is meant to apply only to new institutions and not to those which were in existence at the time the Act was brought into force. If such a submission were to be accepted it would result in the country having to continue to suffer qualitatively inferior set of technical institutions established prior to 1987, even while the requisite quality is to be maintained by the new institutions established subsequent to the coming into force of the Act."

76.8. In D.S.NAKARA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (1983 (1) S.C.131), the Supreme Court had held that the fundamental principle is that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation, but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation, which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differetia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The burden of establishing the rational principle on which the classification is founded and its correlation to the object sought to be achieved lies upon the State.

76.9. In THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL Vs. K.S.JAGANNATHAN (AIR 1987 S.C.537), the Supreme Court had held that the High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion, mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.

77. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions.

77.1. In GOVERNMENT OF A.P. Vs. J.B.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2005) 3 SCC 212), the Supreme Court had held that the purpose of the All India Council for Technical Education Act was proper planning and coordinated development of technical education system throughout the country and promotion of qualitative improvement of such education and other allied matters. The provisions of the Act are intended to improve technical education and the various authorities under the Act have been given exclusive responsibility to coordinate and determine the standards of higher education. It is a general power given to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any project of national importance. Such a coordinated action in higher education with proper standard is of paramount importance to national progress.

77.2. In STATE OF T.N. Vs. S.V.BRATHEEP (2004) 4 SCC 513), the Supreme Court had held as follows:

"Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an exclusivity in the matter of admission. If certain prescription of standards have been made pursuant to Entry 66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over the standards fixed by the State in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India or any other authority functioning under it. But if higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government than what had been prescribed by AICTE, it cannot be said that it is in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by AICTE or reduces the standard fixed by it. It is, therefore, permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for purposes of admission to the engineering colleges than what had been prescribed by AICTE.

The standards fixed should, however, always be realistic which are attainable and are within the reach of the candidates. It cannot be said that the prescriptions by the State Government in addition to those of AICTE in the present case are such which are not attainable or which are not within the reach of the candidates who seek admission for engineering colleges. It is not a very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed as minimum of 60% downwards, but definitely higher than the mere pass marks.

Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. If higher minimum marks have been prescribed, it would certainly add to the excellence in the matter of admission of the students in higher education. the State can always fix a further qualification or additional qualification to what has been prescribed by AICTE even though there may be situations when a large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher standards fixed. The mere fact that there are vacancies in the colleges would not be a matter which would go into the question of fixing the standard of education. Therefore, it is difficult to subscribe to the view that once they are qualified under the criteria fixed by AICTE they should be admitted even if they fall short of the criteria prescribed by the State.

Prescription of standards in education is always accepted to be an appropriate exercise of power by the bodies recognising the colleges or granting affiliation, like AICTE or university. If in exercise of such power the prescription had been made, it cannot be said that the whole matter has been foreclosed. Therefore, it is not possible to sustain the argument that the criteria fixed by AICTE was to be adopted by the respective colleges and once such prescription had been made, it was not open to the Government to prescribe further standards particularly when they had established the institutions in exercise of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution."

77.3. In RAMESHWAR DASS MEHLA Vs. OM PRAKASH SAINI & ORS (JT 2002 (2) SC 403), the Supreme Court had held that we do not think the view taken by the selection committee can be the subject matter of the judicial review as was held by this Court in Govinda Rao's case. In academic matters, particularly pertaining to the qualifications, the view taken by the experts would be final.

78. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AIR 2001 S.C.2861). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision read as follows:

"The definition of technical institution contained in Section 2(h) of AICTE Act excludes from its purview a university. When by definition a university is excluded from a technical institution, to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression technical institution occurs will include a university will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein. The power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned is covered by Section 10(k) does not cover a university but only a technical institution. If Section 10(k) does not cover a university but only a technical institution, a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institution to apply for universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a university and a technical institution.

The Parliament, while enacting the AICTE Act, was fully alive to the existence, in full force and effect of the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, which specifically dealt with the coordination and determination of standards at university level of institutions as well as institutions for higher studies of the category or class other than but deemed to be universities and yet roped into the definition of technical institution only institutions not being a university as defined in Section 2(i). Apart from so defining technical institutions so as to be exclusive of university even in empowering AICTE to do certain things, special care seems to have been conspicuously and deliberately taken to make specific mention of universities, wherever and whenever alone the AICTE was expected to interact with universities and university departments as well as its constituent institutions. In the statement of objects to the AICTE Act, the evil sought to be curbed was stated to be the coming up indiscriminately of number of private engineering colleges and polytechnics in complete disregard of the guidelines resulting in diluted standards, unplanned growth, inadequate facilities and lack of infrastructural facilities in them and not of any anomalies arising out of any university bodies or UGC to even think of either sidelining or subjugating them by constituting AICTE. The guarded language employed for the said purpose and deliberate omission to refer to the universities in Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act while empowering AICTE to accord approval for starting new technical institutions and introduction of new programmes or courses by or in such institutions cannot be ignored to be of any insignificance.

A careful analysis of the various provisions contained in Sections 10, 11 and 22 will further go to show that the role of interaction conferred upon AICTE vis-`-vis universities is limited to the purpose of ensuring the proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system so as to conform to the standards laid down by it, with no further or direct control over such universities or scope for any direct action except bringing it to the notice of UGC or other authorities only, of any lapses in carrying out any directions of AICTE in this regard, for appropriate action. The UGC and universities have always had and have an accepted and well-merited role of primacy to play in shaping as well as stepping up a coordinated development and improvement in the standards of education and research in the sphere of education. When it is only institutions other than universities which are to seek affiliation, it was not correct to state in the decisions under challenges that a university, which cannot grant affiliation to a technical institution, cannot grant the same to itself.

The AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its Departments or units. A careful scanning through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-`-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action."

79. In view of the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, cannot be granted, at this stage. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the courses conducted by the Anna Universities and its affiliated colleges and Institutes are relating to subjects falling outside the meaning of the definition of 'Allied Sciences'.

80. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Anna Universities and its affiliated colleges and institutes are conducting courses and programmes, which are prohibited by the Anna Universities Acts. Further, the petitioner has not challenged the resolutions and the recommendations of the academic council and the syndicate of the Anna Universities. It is not for the petitioner Association to act as an expert body in classifying the subjects, by identifying them as those that are related to engineering and technology and those which are in the nature of pure Arts and Science. Since there is no clear-cut definition of the terms 'Allied Sciences' in any of the enactments, it is for the academic experts, who are in the field of education to identify and to classify the subjects.

81. As seen from the records available, an expert Committee had been constituted to submit a report on the representation received from the affiliated colleges, for conducting B.Sc. and M.Sc. courses. The Committee, after analysing the various aspects relating to the various courses, had arrived at a conclusion that the syllabi of all the B.Sc. and M.Sc. programmes offered by the Engineering Institutions, affiliated to Anna University, coimbatore, had significant Technology content to suit the present Industry requirements and that they are set on par with other technology programmes. The Committee had also identified and recommended 38 different courses, in B.Sc. and M.Sc. Programmes, for being granted affiliation by the Anna University, Coimbatore, from the academic year 2008-2009 onwards. Thereafter, the syndicate had resolved to approve the recommendations of the three member committee and to accord affiliation to B.Sc. and M.Sc. courses in the affiliated colleges. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the B.Sc and M.Sc. courses offered by the affiliated colleges are not in accordance with the provisions of the Anna Universities Acts.

82. Further, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, with regard to the aspect of repugnancy between the Central Act, namely, the All India Council for Technical Education Act and the Anna Universities Acts, which are State enactments, do not arise for consideration in the present case. Even according to the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, one of the main objects of the All India Council for Technical Education is to maintain high standards in technical education. He had also stated that there is no necessity for the Anna universities to obtain the prior approval of the All India council for Technical Education to commence the courses. However, the conducting of such courses is to be regulated, in accordance with the norms prescribed by the All India council for Technical Education, as per the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act. Though the Universities have to follow the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, in respect of certain issues, they have ample powers to take decisions, with regard to the commencement of the courses relating to Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences.

83. In order to make a decision with regard to the nature of the courses, the syllabi, the course content and other such factors should be taken into account, while categorising the subjects as those that are coming under the meaning of 'Allied Sciences' and those that are falling under the category of Arts and Science subjects. Though there may not be a clear demarcation between the two categories of subjects, especially, in view of the changing dimensions in science and technology, it is for the experts in the related fields to classify the subjects, as and when the necessity arises. In such circumstances, it may not be appropriate for the petitioner to contend that the courses conducted by the Anna Universities and its affiliated Colleges and Institutes are in violation of the provisions of the Anna Universities Acts. Further, the petitioner has not challenged the decisions of the academic council and the syndicate of the Anna University, Coimbatore, in deciding to conduct the B.Sc. and M.Sc. Courses.

84. Further, it may not be open to the petitioner Association to state that its members, which are conducting Arts and Science courses, would be adversely affected due to the decision of the Anna Universities to conduct the B.Sc. and M.Sc. courses. The petitioner has not identified the specific courses, which are not falling under the category of 'Allied Sciences'.

85. From the decisions cited in support of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the Anna Universities cannot commence courses, which come under the scope of 'Allied Sciences', nor can it be said that it would be inappropriate for the Universities to permit the affiliated colleges and institutes to conduct such courses.

86. In such view of the matter, it is clear that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. As the writ petition is devoid of merits, it stands dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed. No costs.