Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GHAZIABAD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ghaziabad Institute Of Management And Technology v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 78359 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 10170 (24 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. 78359 of 2005

Ghaziabad Institute of Management of Technology 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 16.11.2005 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. The inspection report submitted by the University indicated that there were many deficiencies and, therefore, the University 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 petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Chancellor of the University, the University and the National Council for Teachers' Education.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Institute not only possesses the requisite number of approved teachers but the other conditions for affiliation have also been satisfied. However, as these facts were not placed before the learned Chancellor of the University, he has made a suggestion that an opportunity may be granted to the Institute to file a fresh representation before the Vice Chancellor of the University pointing out that all the defects have been removed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have, however, strongly urged that as the Institute did not satisfy the requirements for grant of affiliation, 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 satisfy all the requirements for grant of affiliation.

There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Institute today satisfies all the conditions of affiliation as has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such circumstances, in case the Institute satisfies all the conditions of affiliation including the requirement of having the requisite number of approved teachers then it may file a representation before the Vice Chancellor of the University who shall examine the same and then submit his report to the learned Chancellor of the University. However, in case there are any shortcomings, the Institute must first remove the same and then submit the representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University.

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, we direct that the representation filed by the petitioner before the Vice Chancellor of the University shall be examined expeditiously and the Vice Chancellor may then submit the report to the learned Chancellor after satisfying himself that the Institute possesses the requisite number of approved teachers and satisfies all the other conditions. 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. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Dt/- 24.5.2006

Sharma


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.