Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIVEK COLLEGE OF EDUCATION BIJNOR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vivek College Of Education Bijnor v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 16319 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9381 (10 May 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.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16319 of 2006

Vivek College of Education 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 8.3.2006 passed by the learned Chancellor of the M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (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. 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 has stated that the Institute shall now make the selection for the vacant posts of teachers and send the list to the University for granting approval.

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.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner Institute to make the selection for the vacant post of teachers and we have no reason to doubt that in case the Institute makes a request to the University to send the expert(s) then the University shall expeditiously intimate the names of the expert(s) so that the selection can take place. If and when the selection takes place and the teachers are duly approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University and the Institute also satisfies the other requirements for grant of affiliation, then it may submit a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University who shall examine the same and submit his report to the learned Chancellor of the University for passing an appropriate order.

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 Institute must complete the exercise as stated above at the earliest and if the list of selected teachers is sent to the University for approval then appropriate orders regarding the approval/disapproval to the list of the selected teachers of the Institute shall be passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University 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.

Dt:-10.5.2006

GS


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.