Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C/M Hafiz Rahmat Khan Law Degree Collge And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 70612 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 2218 (12 February 2007)


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).


                                                                               Court No.33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70612 of 2006

The Committee of Management, Hafiz Rahmat Khan Law Degree College, district Pilibhit & another


The State of Uttar Pradesh & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents no. 2 and 3 - University. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner-institution is a recognized Law College for running three years law course and is affiliated to the respondent-Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. The sanctioned intake of students for the petitioner-law college is 160 students. As per the Government Order dated 16th March, 2005 the private law colleges are required to admit students from the direct combined admission test held by the University and in case if there is shortfall of students, the University is required to give the list of students admitted and their vacant seats remaining, to the University so that they may make the students available. However, it is provided in the said Government Order that in case if the students are not provided, the college may admit students on their own.

The undisputed facts as borne out from the records are that out of 160 students only 84 students have been assigned to the petitioner-institution by the University and 76 seats still remain vacant. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is a self-financing college. In case if the sanctioned number of students are not admitted, they would not be able to run the law college as they have to meet out the expenses of the teaching and non-teaching staff as well as the infrastructural cost. Thus in case if the total number of seats are not filled up through the respondent-University and the petitioner-college is also not permitted to admit their own students, it has been contended that the petitioner would have to close down the college because of paucity of funds. In Writ Petition No. 17386 of 2006, Krishna College of Law Vs. State of U.P. and others where the question before this Court was with regard to declaration of result of such students who had been admitted by the college, had come up and while allowing the writ petition by judgment and order dated 19.7.2006, this Court made the following observations:-

"It is colleges established in the private sector which have came forward to give respite to the students and professional fields by imparting education. They invest huge amount of money and provide best infra-structure available. Though they may not be allowed to indulge in profiteering but are certainly entitled to cover the expenses and to gain some profit so that advancement in teaching skills and infra-structure can be made by future investment. If such colleges do not provide quality teaching or indulge in unfair practice, certainly the students will not prefer such colleges. The Government or the Universities can have only regulatory approach but certainly not the approach that would destroy the educational atmosphere which is being created in the country by participation/establishment of these colleges in the field of education, hence every seat filled up by the institution is precious and cannot be permitted to remain vacant or go waste in any session. The institutions, in this regard, cannot be given free hand and Government, Universities and the institutions should supplement each other to raise the standard of education day to day."  

The stand taken by the University is that in all the affiliated colleges the sanctioned strength is of 1600 students and on the basis of merit in the combined admission test, the University had given admit cards to 2623 students, who had the option of choosing the college and in case if the selected students did not want to join the petitioner-college the University cannot be held responsible for the same.

Be that as it may, since the petitioner-college has the sanctioned strength of 160 students per annum, it would be the responsibility and duty of the University to give the petitioner-college such students for education, failing which, as per the Government Order dated 16th March, 2005 itself the University would be entitled to admit their own students.

In the present case, since it is not clear as to whether the petitioner-college has, after there was shortfall of students, approached the University for providing further students or not, hence while allowing this writ petition, it is directed that the petitioner shall first approach the respondent-University alongwith the list of students for providing further 76 students to them within two weeks from today and in case if within 15 days of such letters being received by the University, the University does not provide further students to the petitioner-college, the petitioner-college shall be entitled to admit further shortfall of students on the basis of merit, which may be assessed on the basis of their graduation results.

No costs.

Let a copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, within a week, on payment of usual charges.    





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


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 |

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