Study centres, franchise organisations or those running participatory programmes of the Bharathiar University should not be allowed to conduct examinations for students they had admitted because it will be in violation of court orders, the Association of Self Financing Arts, Science and Management College of Tamil Nadu has told the Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Bharathiar University and the University’s Director of Distance Education.

The association said that in a writ petition its president A.M.M. Khaleel filed against the University for not granting affiliation or signing MoU with franchisee organisations for conducting distance education programmes, the Madras High Court had issued an interim injunction to the University to not operate distance education study centres or allow franchisee centres to offer distance education programmes from 2018-19.

Notwithstanding the injunction, the Syndicate sought to pass a resolution on November 20, 2018 to permit spot admission in such franchisee centres to complete the admission process for the 2018-19 academic year.

Against this Syndicate resolution, an academic R. Nithyanandam moved a contempt petition against the University. The court had not disposed of either the writ petition or the contempt petition.

In these circumstances, based on the April 24, 2019 orders the court had passed on a writ petition by private study centres, the University had planned to permit students who were admitted in 2018-19 take examinations.

The petitioners – private study centres – had not brought to the notice of the court that two petitions were pending in this regard and that it had not disposed of those with final orders.

In such circumstances, if the University were to allow the franchisee or study centres to conduct exams for students who were admitted for the 2018-19 academic year, it would be in violation of the court order. If the Government failed to restrain the University or the latter failed to prevail over the study centres, the association would have not any choice but to again move the court for appropriate action, it said.