Mazharul Uloom College Vs The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education

¶1

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.25454, 27469, 27470, 28478 & 28479 of 2026

¶7

W.P.No.23465 of 2026:

¶8

Association of University Teachers Tamil Nadu, Mazharul Uloom College Unit, Regn. No.64/1971, Rep. by its Unit Secretary, No.49, Mohammed Ali 2^nd Street, Pernambut – 635 810, Vellore District. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Thiruvallur University,

¶11

Rep. by its Registrar, Serkkadu, Vellore – 632 115.

¶12

The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Directorate of Collegiate Education, No.577, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶13

The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Vellore Region, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore – 632 006.

¶14

Mazharul Uloom College, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, Ambur – 635 802.

¶15

The Principal i/c. Mazharul Uloom College, Ambur 635 802.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

1/14

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶20

W.P.No.25195 of 2026:

¶21

Mazharul Uloom College, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, Nazar Mohamed, Ambur – 635 802.

¶22

... Petitioner

¶23

Vs

¶24

The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Vellore Region, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore – 632 006.

¶25

... Respondent

¶26

W.P.No.26084 of 2026

¶27

Z.Mujeeb Ahmed (Minor)

¶28

(Rep. by Father and Natural Guardian, N.Zaheer Ahmed)

¶29

1. V.Mohammed Mufassir (Minor)

¶30

(Rep. by Father and Natural Guardian, V.Siddique Ahmed)

¶31

1. R.Mugundhan (Minor)

¶32

(Rep. by Father and Natural Guardian, T.Raji)

¶33

1. E.Sakthivel (Minor)

¶34

(Rep. by Mother and Natural Guardian, Madhu)

¶35

1. S.Sudeesh

¶36

(Rep. by Father and Natural Guardian, S.Suresh Kumar)

¶37

1. J.Surya

¶38

(Rep. by Father and Natural Guardian, Jothiswaran)

¶39

1. B.Pradeep

¶40

(Rep. by Mother and Natural Guardian, Jeeva Babu)

¶41

... Petitioners

¶42

Vs.

¶43

Thiruvallur University, Rep. by its Registrar, Serkkadu, Vellore – 632 115.

¶44

The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Directorate of Collegiate Education, No.577, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶45

2/14

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶48

The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Vellore Region, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore – 632 006.

¶49

Mazharul Uloom College, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, Ambur – 635 802.

¶50

The Principal i/c. Mazharul Uloom College, Ambur 635 802. ... Respondents

¶51

Common Prayer in W.P.Nos.23465 & 26084 of 2026: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ in the nature of Declaration, declaring the action of the 4 th and 5 th respondents in not uploading the B.A. Corporate Economics) and B.Sc., (Mathematics) in the admission portal of the College for the academic year 2026-2027 and in the subsequent academic years and preventing the petitioner(s)/students from applying for the said courses as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the 4^th and 5^th respondents to include the B.A. (Corporate Economics) and B.Sc.,(Mathematics) in the admission portal of the College for the Academic Year 2026-2027 and admit petitioners/students in terms of the directions of the 3^rd respondent issued in the order dated 10.04.2026 Na.Ka.No.366/Pu.Ka./2025, order dated 27.04.2026, order dated Na.Ka.No.366/Pu.Ka./2025, order dated 08.05.2026 order bearing Na.Ka.No.366/Pu.Ka./2025 and order dated 03.06.2026 bearing Na.Ka.No.366/Pu.Ka./2025.

¶52

Prayer in W.P.No.25195 of 2026: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order dated 10.04.2026 in Ref. No. 366/Pu.Ka./2025

¶53

3/14

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶56

and the consequential orders dated 27.04.2026 in Ref No. 366/Pu.Ka./2025, 08.05.2026 in Ref no. 366/Pu.Ka./2025, 23.06.2026 in Ref No. 366/Pu.Ka./2025 passed by the Respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the Respondent to approve the Application dated 22.07.2025 for closure of B.Sc., Mathematics program and B.A., Corporate Economics program.

¶57

In W.P.Nos.23465 & 26084 of 2026,

¶58

For Petitioners : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexi (for R1)

¶59

Mr.T.Gowthaman, AAG Assisted by Mr.S.Sidarthavishnu (R2&R3)

¶60

Mr.Murali Kumaran, Senior Counsel for M/s.MCGAN Law Firm (for R4 & R5)

¶61

In W.P.No.23465 of 2026,

¶62

For Petitioner : Mr.Murali Kumaran, Senior Counsel for M/s.MCGAN Law Firm

¶63

For Respondents : Mr.T.Gowthaman, AAG Assisted by Mr.S.Sidarthavishnu

¶64

COMMON ORDER

¶65

The present writ petitions arise out of a singular, interconnected dispute concerning students intake and the proposed discontinuance of two undergraduate courses, namely B.Sc. (Mathematics) and B.A. (Corporate

¶66

4/14

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶69

Economics), at Mazharul Uloom College, for the upcoming academic sessions. Since the parties, the institution, and the underlying subject matter are identical, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

¶70

The case Mazharul Uloom College/ petitioner in W.P.No.25195

¶71

of 2026 (hereinafter referred to as “College”) is that it is a minority educational institution established in 1969 and the respondent, Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, approved teaching for the courses of B.Sc. (Mathematics) and B.A. (Corporate Economics) with a condition that there should be a minimum of 20 students in each stream. However, since 2018, there has been a steady decline in students’ strength for the aforesaid courses. In the academic years 2024-25 and 2025-26, the student strength fell to zero in the Mathematics stream, and eight students in the course of Corporate Economics. Therefore, in order to avoid expending on maintenance of infrastructure, staff salaries and other expenses, which the petitioner Management could ill afford, it was resolved to discontinue these courses. A notice dated 22.07.2025 was issued to the respondent intimating that the petitioner Management proposes to discontinue the above two courses. However, the above request came to be rejected after a lapse of one year without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶72

5/14

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶75

Therefore, against the orders passed by the respondent, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner Management.

¶76

Petitioners in W.P.Nos.23465 & 26084 of 2026 are hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioners’. These writ petitions are filed by the members of the Association and prospective/ interested/ intended students alleging mala fides on the part of the fourth respondent/Management, inter alia including collecting fees for the condonation of attendance etc, which was brought to the notice of Thiruvallur University, leading to an adverse enquiry report by the University. The fourth respondent/Management, in order to wreck vengeance on the members of the Association, is not admitting students for the B.A. (Corporate Economics) and B.Sc. (Mathematics) courses for the Academic Year 2026-2027, inspite of directions being issued by the third respondent. Hence, the present petitions were filed by the Association and students.

¶77

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that prior approval for closure of B.A. (Corporate Economics) and B.Sc., (Mathematics) has not been granted by the competent authority viz., Director of Collegiate Education. While the learned counsel for petitioners

¶78

6/14

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶81

would submit that in terms of Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, no private college and no class or no course of instruction in a private college shall be closed without obtaining the prior approval of the competent authority. However, the fourth respondent Management has closed the following courses viz., B.A. (Corporate Economics) and B.Sc., (Mathematics) without obtaining “prior approval” of the “competent authority” viz., Director of Collegiate Education. The above action is in contravention of Section 25 read with Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Rules, which mandates that college which proposes to discontinue or close a particular course ought to submit an application before the September of the previous year along with Form 8. However, Form 8 was submitted only on 17.09.2025 and thus beyond the period prescribed in terms of Rule 16 of the said Rules. However, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent Management, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the above submission of the petitioner, on the scope of Section 25 of the Act read with Rule 16, would submit that petitioner Association in W.P.23645 of 2026, which is an association of University Teachers, Tamil Nadu Mazharul Uloom College Unit, may not have the locus standi to maintain this writ petition and would place reliance upon a judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in

¶82

7/14

¶83

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶84

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶85

the case of Deepanshu Sharma and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

¶86

reported in 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 3065 , wherein under identical circumstances, it was found that an association of professor/teachers may not have the locus to insist upon continuation of particular course although discontinuation may possibly result in retrenchment of the members of the said association. The Punjab and Haryana High Court found that the person, who is incidentally affected in consequence of a decision does not by that

¶87

token alone acquire a legal standing to challenge the same, that the distinction between aggrieved in fact and aggrieved in law is neither illusory nor academic and they also relied upon the maxim Lex Non Facet Voltis Delicatorum - the law does not favour the complaints of faintly aggrieved.

¶88

The counsel for the fourth respondent Management would submit that “prior approval”, is something which may be required only when there is closure of existing courses in terms of Section 25(1), 25(2) read with Rule 16 and Form 8.

¶89

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that “prior approval” of the competent authority is a pre-requisite for closure of a college, class or course. In

¶90

8/14

¶91

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶92

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶93

support thereof, he would rely on sub-section (4) to Section 25 of the Act, wherein reasons / circumstances warranting rejection of request for prior approval for closure of any class/ course is enumerated.

¶94

The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit

¶95

that if one reads Section 25, 16 and Form 8 as a whole, it leaves no room for any doubt that the procedure contemplated under Section 16, more particularly timeline by which Form A ought to be submitted must be strictly construed and any failure to comply with the stipulated timelines would prove fatal.

¶96

The learned Additional Advocate General would also submit that petitioner, instead of filing an application in Form A as they ought to in terms of the mandate contained in Section 25(2) read with Section 16(1), have instead submitted a representation on 22.07.2025. He would also submit that because it was not in the prescribed form, the authorities are right in not examining the same. Even though petitioners were intimated on 19.09.2025 which is beyond the period stipulated under Rule 16(1) for submission of Form A, nevertheless, petitioner appear to have submitted almost a month later i.e., on 14.10.2025 clearly showing that timelines have

¶97

9/14

¶98

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶99

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶100

not been complied with, in submitting application for closure of courses in

¶101

terms of Rule 16.

¶102

Learned counsel for the fourth respondent (the petitioner in W.P.No.25195 of 2026) would respond by submitting that there is inaction

¶103

on the part of the respondents in not dealing with the representation submitted as early as on 22.07.2025 by the College, where they have sought permission for closure of two courses viz., B.Sc.,Mathematics and B.A. Corporate Economics. It was made clear in the said representation, that of three students admitted to B.Sc. Mathematics, two students have withdrawn admission and one student opted for change of the course to B.Sc. Computer Science making it to zero admission this year, while in the course of B.A. Corporate Economics out of 11 students admitted, 1 student neither reported nor has submitted transfer certificate and only 10 students remained. He would submit that it may be in the interest of the State to close two courses as these are Government Aided Courses and the Government Aid would be continue to be granted to these courses, though there are no admissions. However, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that failure to comply with the timelines would prove fatal, to request by College for closure of B.A.Corporate Economics and B.Sc.Mathematics.

¶104

10/14

¶105

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶106

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶107

The learned counsel for fourth respondent, Management would

¶108

submit that as a matter of fact, the very day they were intimated to submit in Form A, an email has been sent on the same day i.e., on 19.09.2025 and he would submit that he would produce a copy of the same. However, on verification, the learned counsel would submit that the representation for the closure of the said two courses was submitted by hand on 23.04.2025. However no proof of such service was produced. He would further submit that opportunities were not granted to them before the rejection of their course discontinuance notice, thus proceeding stands vitiated.

¶109

11. In response, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 2 and 3, on instructions, submitted that an opportunity of personal hearing will be afforded to the fourth respondent Management at an early date.

¶110

12. Accordingly, the fourth respondent Management (the petitioner in W.P.No.25195 of 2026) is directed to appear before the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Vellore Region, on a date to be fixed by the authority at the earliest (forthwith).

¶111

11/14

¶112

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶113

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶114

13. In the interim, to safeguard the interests of the students, this

¶115

Court is inclined to direct the Management, Mazharul Uloom College, to immediately upload and make available the application forms on the admission portal for admission in the courses of B.A. Corporate Economics and B.Sc., Mathematics.

¶116

14. It is made clear that the applications received shall be processed by the authorities. However, the admissions shall be subject to the final outcome of the application / representation of the College requesting closure of B.A.Corporate Economics and B.Sc.Mathematics.

¶117

15. It is open to the respondent authority/The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Vellore Region, to consider the representation of the petitioner/Management dated 22.07.2025 on its own merits. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of whether the said representation constitutes a valid application. All issues are left open for the competent authority to decide.

¶118

16. The respondent authorities and Management shall ensure that the admission application forms are uploaded and operational on the portal forthwith.

¶119

12/14

¶120

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶121

W.P.Nos.23465, 25195 & 26084 of 2026

¶122