High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M. Savita Devi Mahavidyalaya Thru' Its Honorary Secy. v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary, Higher Education And Others - WRIT - C No. 18069 of 2006  RD-AH 9173 (9 May 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18069 of 2006
Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.3.2006 passed by the learned Chancellor of the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the ''University') refusing to extend the temporary affiliation granted to the petitioner Institute under Section 37 (2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act').
The averments made in the writ petition reveal that the petitioner Institute was initially granted temporary affiliation by the University for the academic Session 2004-05 under Section 37(2) of the Act. A notice was, however, issued to the petitioner Institute under Section 37(9) of the Act pointing out the various irregularities. Amongst the many reasons indicated in the notice, one reason was that the Institute did not have the requisite number of teachers approved by the University. A reply was submitted to the aforesaid notice in which it was admitted that the teachers had been approved by the University only for the academic session 2004-05 and the matter regarding the approval of the teachers selected subsequently was pending before the University. The University also did not make any favourable recommendation in favour of the petitioner Institute for extension of the temporary affiliation. The learned Chancellor of the University after perusing the documents on record, including the comments of the University, passed the impugned order refusing to extend the temporary affiliation of the Institute.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Chancellor of the University, the University and the National Council for Teachers' Education.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Institute had made the selection of the teachers and had sent the list to the University for granting approval but the University did not pass any order either granting approval to the list of selected teachers or refusing to grant such approval. He, therefore, submitted that the Chancellor of the University was not justified in passing the impugned order.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have, however, strongly urged that as the Institute did not have the requisite number of approved teachers, the Chancellor of the University was justified in refusing to extend the temporary affiliation under the provisions of the Act.
We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
It cannot be doubted that an Institute should not be permitted to impart education if it does not have the requisite number of teachers approved by the University. In the present case the Institute admittedly does not have the requisite number of approved teachers. In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned Chancellor of the University cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.
However, we must not loose sight of the fact that the matter regarding the approval to the appointment of the selected teachers has been pending before the University since long and it is because of the inaction on the part of the University that the Institute does not have the requisite number of approved teachers. We, therefore, consider it expedient in the interest of justice that the University may now pass an appropriate order regarding approval/disapproval to the appointment of the selected teachers provided that no order has already been passed and if consequent upon such approval, if any, the Institute possesses the requisite number of approved teachers and also satisfies the other requirements for grant of affiliation, then it may submit a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University who shall then examine the same and submit his report to the learned Chancellor of the University for passing an appropriate order. In the event the Institute does not have the requisite number of teachers approved by the University then in that case it must take immediate steps for selection of such teachers and we have no reason to doubt that the Vice Chancellor of the University shall, if requested, send the expert(s) to participate in the meeting of the Selection Committee. The representation to the Vice Chancellor may, in such circumstances, should be filed after the Vice Chancellor has granted approval to the selection of such teachers.
We have been informed that the admissions for the academic session 2005-06 have not been made as yet. In this view of the matter, the Vice Chancellor of the University shall now pass an appropriate order regarding the approval/disapproval to the list of the selected teachers of the Institute expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioners before him, and if the Institute files the representation pointing out that it satisfies all the conditions, then the Vice Chancellor of the University shall examine it and send his report to the learned Chancellor of the University within a period of four weeks thereafter specifically mentioning whether the Institute possesses the requisite number of teachers approved by the University and also satisfies the other conditions required for affiliation. We also request the learned Chancellor of the University to thereafter pass an appropriate order expeditiously.
We make it clear that we have not set aside the impugned order and it is only by way of post decisional hearing that this exercise has been ordered to be undertaken.
The writ petition is disposed of subject to the observations made above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.