The reason all these institutes have refused to opt for the online exam conducted by COA, introduced from 2006 and made mandatory in 2007 by the regulatory body.

COA however, claims it's not targeting these institutes for failure to toe the line. The recommendation to the HRD ministry to de-recognise SPA is based on its inability to maintain basic standards as laid down by COA, said Prof Vijay Shrikrishan Sohoni, president of COA. ``The NATA (COA's online exam) is a minor issue. The fact is that SPA has an abysmal student-teacher ratio, which needs to be rectified.''

According to Sohoni, the ratio as recommended by COA is 1:8. ``However, at SPA, there are 27 sanctioned posts for the UG level for 360 students, Of this, only 14 posts are occupied at present,'' he said. Sohoni claimed that the regulatory body had tried to discuss the issue with SPA several times in the past three years, but got no response. ``Finally, we had to send the recommendation to the ministry in March,'' added Sohoni.

SPA sources deny the allegation. Said a senior official, ``There has been no communication from the body about this.'' Neither the dean of studies, Prof AK Sharma, nor the director, Prof Ranjit Mitra, were available for comment.

However, that doesn't explain the long line of institutes where COA has recommended a ``freeze'' on intake. Interestingly, almost all the 19 institutes are prominent ones, with central or deemed university status. Sohoni admits the faceoff is because of their refusal to opt for NATA. ``We had suggested the NATA since it's a secure exam which would have provided a basic platform to all applicants. But these institutes have refused.''

Says Jamia's dean of architecture, Prof SM Akhtar, ``The exam that COA is insisting on is not in the same standard as the entrance conducted by us. Besides, no other regulatory body like MCI insists on conducting an exam for institutes. Why is the COA interfering in the running of universities.''