Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DOON COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, SUNDARPUR SAHARANPUR AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Doon College Of Education, Sundarpur Saharanpur And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 14255 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5520 (8 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14255 of 2006

Doon College of Education

Sundarpur & Anr.                 ------- Petitioners

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors.   ------- Respondents

     ----------------

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Neeraj Tripathi for the Chancellor, Shri Anurag Khanna for the University and Shri Rajiv Joshi for the NCTE.

The petitioner's educational institution was granted recognition by the NCTE. It was also granted permanent affiliation by the Chancellor for running B.Ed. course. The said permanent affiliation has been revoked by the impugned order dated 6.2.2006 enclosed as Annexure 8 to this writ petition.

It appears that the Chancellor was either not apprised of the accurate facts because of which the said impugned order has been passed or certain material facts were overlooked by the Chancellor due to inadvertence.

We have already held in other cases that before refusing the continuation of existing affiliation and more importantly before cancelling a permanent affiliation, full facts must be intimated to the management of the college by way of a show cause notice, which must also disclose the basis of the allegations for such withdrawal and not merely the allegations or the  shortcomings.

The Chancellor must therefore be give an opportunity to the management to remove the shortcomings or to demonstrate that the shortcomings do not exist and also to rebut the basis for such alleged shortcomings. In the present case, we find that although show cause notice was given, but the material which formed the basis, i.e., the report of the University was not supplied to the petitioner.

Refusing to continue an existing temporary affiliation or cancelling a permanent affiliation should be resorted to only where the Chancellor is satisfied that the college in question will not be able to properly serve the purpose for which the college has been established, viz., imparting proper education to the students admitted to the college. Technicalities, which do not adversely affect the aforesaid purpose, should not be allowed to persuade discontinuation of an existing temporary affiliation or cancellation of a permanent affiliation as the consequences of such discontinuation not only adversely affect the college but also adversely affect the past and future prospective students.

It would not be desirable to unnecessarily cut down the number of educational institution on technicalities and thereby deprive the students from getting the education which they desire. If the number of educational institution is cut down, the remaining institutions get a monopoly, which is capable of being misused. By way of an example, it may be mentioned that the Chancellor has stated in the impugned order that the college does not have approved qualified teachers. We may mention that Annexure 15 to this writ petition, is an order of the University dated 14.9.2004 granting approval to the Principal and 10 other lecturers of the college. The said document also mentions the qualification of each of these persons, it however, does not mention the experience.  Prima facie, the qualifications appear to be adequate. It is not the case of the Chancellor in the impugned order that any of these teachers lack the requisite experience.

More importantly, the said approval dated 14.9.2004 does not say that it has been granted for a limited period of one year or more. Prima facie, the college had permanent affiliation, the approval shall  also be deemed to be permanent unless either the approval order says that it is for a limited period or the college itself seeks only limited approval for a limited period or the advertisement on the basis of which these teachers were selected sought application by teachers, who are interested only in short term or limited duration appointments.

On this point, we would like to clarify that the purpose of a prior approval of the University in the U.P. State Universities Act is to ensure by way of a supervision by the University that the teachers, who may be appointed, are duly qualified and eligible for the appointment and the selection process right from the time of advertisement till the time of selection has been proper and in accordance with law. Keeping the above purpose in mind, it would appear that an approval granted to the qualified teachers after due selection must hold good for such period as the teachers continue on the particular posts, unless as stated above, the advertisement inviting applications mentioned that the post was of limited duration or the management seeks a limited duration approval or the approval order, for any valid reason, says that it is for a limited duration.

Further, even if the approval is for a limited duration, the fresh approval for the next academic year after expiry of the present approval is more or less a formality because the eligibility of the due selection process and the eligibility of candidates has already been examined by the University. Therefore, the approval for further duration can be refused only on valid reasons mentioned in the disapproval order and not otherwise.

Taking any other view and permitting this limited duration appointment would be contrary to the public interest and would place the teachers selected and approved completely on the mercy of the management year by year which appears to be very undesirable specially in the present time.

The Chancellor has also raised the objection that the land is not in the name of the college, but is in the name of the Chairman. A supplementary affidavit  has been filed enclosing the documents to show that the land is in the name of the college. Orders passed under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari and Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which are also being relied upon by the petitioner's side are also left for the Chancellor to examine.

Another objection of the Chancellor is that in the institution, the Courses of B.Sc. (Bio tech) and B.P.Ed. Courses are also being run and separate land and building is not earmarked for the B.Ed. Course.

According to the Chancellor's order itself, the land available is more than sufficient for each of these three courses and we have not been made aware of any law requiring demarcation of separate land and building for separate courses.

In a nut shell, the order of the Chancellor requires reconsideration. We therefore, allow this petition, set aside the impugned order of the Chancellor dated 6.2.2006, leaving it open to the Chancellor to take a fresh decision in the matter.

Writ petition is allowed as above.

8.3.2006

VKS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.