High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vice Chancellor, Dr. B.R.A. University, Agra & Another v. Subharati K.K.B. Charitable Trust, & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 301 of 2006  RD-AH 9378 (10 May 2006)
Special Appeal No. (301) of 2006.
Vice Chancellor, Dr. Bheem Rao
Ambedkar University, Agra and
others ........... Appellants
Subharati K.K.B. Charitable Trust
and others ........... Respondents.
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
This order disposes of the appeal filed by the University of Agra against a judgment and order of an Hon'ble Single Judge dated the 8th of December, 2005, along with two other applications of theirs. The judgment was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran.
By two orders passed in two appeals, both dated the 2nd of February, 2006, one of which appeals was filed by the State of U.P. and the other by a social worker Ravi Prakash, we affirmed the said order of Hon'ble Single Judge and dismissed the two appeals.
The University has now preferred their appeal, slightly late, from the very same order and has obtained condonation of delay. They have also made two applications for recall of our two earlier orders so that there is no problem of conflicting of decisions.
The main ground taken by the University is that we should now allow their appeal and set-aside the same order which we had earlier affirmed, because according to them, several important materials were suppressed from us and if those had been brought on record there would be no way but to allow the appeals.
Although in form we are only disposing of a third appeal from same judgment, the nature of the disposal is in the nature of the disposal of a review application. Fresh materials are brought on record and a fresh and different decision is asked for on the basis thereof.
Before we consider the submissions of the University and the allegations of suppression and fraud practised on Court, we should mention that the State Government has already preferred an S.L.P. from one of our dismissal orders dated 2.2.2006. Strange though it might seen we came to know of such filing from Mr. Singh who was representing the Medical College in question. The State Counsel has no information about the S.L.P. We fully relied on and accept what has been said by State Counsel and there has been a communication gap. In any event there is no reason why we should not dispose of the matter which has been argued before us today.
The issue related to the admission of 100 students of Subharati Medical College in the academic session 2004-2005. The College got a very late affiliation for one year for the said academic session from the Medical Council of India and it came on 24.9.2004. It is common ground that the admissions had to be completed by the 30th of that month. The learned Single Judge's judgment is fully clear as to how the matter was delayed even thereafter for five days by the College as a result of which the management admitted 100 per cent of its students and the State or University quota for the academic session 2004-2005 was zero.
It is also on record that, although after the filing of a writ, on 12.8.2005 the affiliation of medical college has, after all, been granted by the University of Agra for the said academic session.
The problem of admission surrounding these 100 students is therefore a problem of quota only.
The University submitted that two orders passed by the Lucknow Bench in two separate writ matters dated respectively the 5th of January, 2005 and the 28th of September, 2005 had not been placed before us. It is true that those orders were not before us. Those were both interim orders. In one order the Secretary of the State was asked to go into the matter of the admissions granted and file a report as to whether those should be cancelled or not. It was a case filed by a parents' association. From 5.1.2005 until now no other proceedings appear to have taken place in aid of that litigation.
The second order dated 28.9.2005 mentioned about the 50% quota. It specifically recorded that for the next session, i.e. 2005-2006 the management would have no quota left for itself as it has used its 100% in the same year.
That restraint order in terms does not touch the admissions granted; that is because it is for the next year; if anything, it impliedly proceeds on the validity of such grant of admission.
Exactly in the same strain is an extremely important and crucial letter dated the 18th of August, 2005 which was written by the Director General of the Medical Education and Training, U.P., one Kamal Sahni.
Notably it was written one year after the admission. That letter proceeded on the same basis that 100% quota would be claimed by the State Government for the next academic session.
The State and the Director General have now supported the University and opposed the admission, but at the material time, i.e. in and after September, 2004 they had kept totally silent and have permitted the 100 students to pursue their course.
The other allegation of suppression relates to proceedings before a five member committee constituted by the State Government under its order dated the 20th of February, 2004 following directives in the T.M.A. Pia case (A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 355) and Islamic Academy's case reported in A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3724 (which committee has found further mention in the recent Inamdar's case reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3226).
The committee was proceeding on a complaint in regard to the said same academic session 2004-2005 and the College had submitted its reply. These were over in October, 2005 and the proceedings before the Committee were closed in November, 2005. The Committee appears to have examined the matter of 50% quota. Its main function, as should be well known to the Committee itself, is examining the transparency of admission in so far as the management quota is concerned. Its decision, not accepting the admissions granted was given on 9.12.2005.
The Hon'ble Single Judge, who delivered his Lordship's judgment on 8.12.2005 was unaware of the proceedings before the Committee as the judgment itself shows. That was another suppression practised by the College
A recall application made before the Committee was disposed of on the 29th of December, 2005 and the Committee took upon itself to pronounce that the Single Judge's judgment had been obtained by suppressing materials before the Court. How for the Committee can or should pronounce on the result of litigation had in the High Court is a question which we do not wish to examine just at present. However, the question does arise, and the answer is not necessarily free from doubt.
The Committee proceedings were not suppressed before the Court of appeal. As such this is a point of part suppression only.
The other suppression is said to have been made with regard to an Article 32 petition No.407 of 2005 which was filed by the College in respect of a refusal made by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department in regard to grant of admissions in the academic session 2005-2006. The refusal is dated 17.8.2005 and the refusal itself was before us at the time we disposed of the appeal. The Article 32 petition has not been proceeded with any further. It is clear that so far as the academic session 2005-2006 is concerned the college has missed the bus and one batch of students has not been admitted at all.
It is clarified that if the law still requires a 50% 50% division between the management quota of private colleges and the State or University quota, then and in that event the college would have to honour its previous obligations as and when it admits students in any future academic year.
The case of the College is that it is not slowly closing down, as was sought to be submitted. On the other hand it submits that it is facing difficulties with certain officials of the University and one trustee of their own Board of Trustees. Otherwise, according to them, the College is very good and sound. We do not understand why if a college is very good and sound it should admit no student at all for one full academic year.
Be that as it may, we also have to put on record that as per submissions made from the Bar, by one letter dated 4th of March, 2006 the Medical Council intimated about another inspection of the said College to be made by it and the inspections took place on the 6th and 7th of April this year. No positive results are yet on record whether the College will be in a position to admit any student in the academic session 2006-2007, or ever afterwards, or not, nobody yet knows.
On this basis we are constrained to hold that quite some suppression was certainly made on behalf of the College. However, it was not a case where on the basis of suppression an interim order was obtained; the suppression, as made, occurred at the time of final disposal of an appeal; the suppression in these circumstances does not automatically render invalidation of the order passed, which would be the consequence if a first interim order had been obtained on such suppression. The effect of the suppression has to be assessed and judged. We are today extremely distant in time from the day when admissions were granted, i.e. in September, 2004.
There seems to be no way of rectifying the non granting of admissions to 50 students of combined medical list drawn up at that time. If all the State authorities had been active, and as active as the College itself, surely they would have got their quota even in September, 2004. But they chose to wait and adopt the policy of trying for a 100% quota in the next academic session. Whether they will ever get that or not is in the womb of the future, but dislodging any of the students now is a matter which is bordering on the impossible.
The Hon'ble Single Judge had directed the first year examination to be held and results declared on the basis that the admissions were substantially valid. We have affirmed that judgment. The results, after quite some pressure and litigation have been declared on the 22nd of April, 2006.
There is no way to stop the completion of the medical course by the 100 students already admitted. Whether the College will be able to admit a fresh batch ever again or not does not really fall for consideration by us. In these circumstances we opine that although there was suppression, it does not merit a different manner of dismissal of the University's appeal than was adopted on the earlier occasion by us. The College is directed to make at least some amends for the suppression by investing another sum of Rs. 5 lac in the same manner as was directed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in his Lordship's order dated 8th December, 2005.
Save as aforesaid, the appeal and the two applications of the University are all dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.