High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M. Shyamlal Saraswati Mahavidhyalaya Thru' Its Secretary v. The Chancellor, Ch. Charan Singh University And Others - WRIT - C No. 10762 of 2006  RD-AH 4835 (1 March 2006)
COURT NO. 36.
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 10762 OF 2006
Committee of Management, Shyamlal Saraswati
Mahavidyalaya, Sikarpur, Bulandshahr & another ...... Petitioners.
The Chancellor, Ch. Charan Singh University,
Raj Bhawan, Lucknow and others. ....... Respondents.
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Niraj Tripathi for the Chancellor and Sri Anurag Khanna for the University.
The petitioner's educational institution was granted recognition by the NCTE and was also granted temporary affiliation by the Chancellor for the session 2004-05. However, for the current academic session 2005-06, affiliation has been refused to be continued by the impugned order of the Chancellor dated 3.2.2006. Although several objections are mentioned in the initial part of the order, but while recording his finding, the Chancellor has referred to only four objections in the latter part of his order.
The first objection is with regard to the ''management quota' and ''reservation quota'. While reconsidering these objections, the Chancellor has not considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharastra reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537 and while considering the alleged violation of ''reservation quota' the Chancellor has not considered the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28.7.2005, passed in Writ Petition No. 4215 (M/S) of 2005.
With regard to second objection of the Chancellor, it mentions that from the prescribed standards five qualified teachers are lacking. In reply to this objection the petitioner has enclosed a list of the Education Department in the petitioner's institution dated 16.1.2006, countersigned and verified by the University, which contains a Principal and 8 other teachers.
Because the Chancellor's order does not taken into account this list and fails to point out that the Principal and on which of the eight other teachers are either not qualified or approved, therefore, the matter deserves to be re-examined by the Chancellor with reasons.
So far as the third objection is concerned, with regard to 2.083 hectares of land available with the college, which is running several other courses, the petitioner relies upon a Government Order dated 27.9.2002, enclosed as the second annexure to the supplementary affidavit filed today, which prescribes a minimum area of 20,000 sq. mts. of land in respect of multiple course degree colleges. Therefore, this third reason also requires further detailed examination with reasons.
Similarly objection no. 4, which says that the promise mentioned in the affidavit dated 1.10.2004 has not been fulfilled, is vague and does not give which particular promise is being referred to and what is the effect of non-fulfillment of that promise upon proper running of the educational institution.
In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 3.2.2006 requiring the Chancellor to re-examine the matter. Till the re-examination by the Chancellor, the temporary affiliation, granted earlier, will continue, but not beyond the academic session 2005-06.
Dated : 1.3.2006.
Writ No. 10762-06.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.