Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M. KHANDELWAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY versus HIS EXCELLENCY THE CHANCELLOR M.J.P. ROHILKHAND UNIV. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M. Khandelwal College Of Management Science & Technology v. His Excellency The Chancellor M.J.P. Rohilkhand Univ. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 19275 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16291 (19 September 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. 29

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19275 of 2006

C/M Khandelwal College of Management Science & Technology, Kalanpur, Pilibhit Road, Bareilly through its Secretary and another.......................Petitioner

vs

The Chancellor, MJP, Rohilkhand University Bareilly/Raj Bhawan, Lucknow and others                           ................Respondents

HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.

HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

1. Khandelwal College of Management Science & Technology, Kalanpur, Pilibhit Road, Bareilly (the college) is affiliated with the MJP, Rohilkhand University Bareilly (the University). The college was granted affiliation by the University for holding B.Ed  course. This affiliation has been withdrawn by the Chancellor of the University by his order dated 7.3.2006. Hence the present writ petition.  

2. We have heard counsel for the petitioners, Standing Counsel, Sri Neeraj Tripathi and Sri Govind Saran for the respondents. The chancellor passed the impugned order withdrawing the affiliation on the following five grounds.

(i)The college has realised Rs. 25,000/- from each student under the Management quota instead of Rs. 14,500/- as prescribed by the Government.

(ii)50% admission in the college was done in place of 15% under management quota in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court in writ petition no. 4314 of 2004 though the concerned college and other colleges were not party in the writ petition.

(iii) Prescribed admission-procedure was not adopted under the management quota.

(iv)Government order dated 09.03.2000 has been partly complied with.

(v)There is shortage of one teacher and one Head of Department in the college for B.Ed course according to standard.

3. The petitioner in para-24 of the writ petition has stated that Rs. 25,000/- was taken from each student in pursuance of the letter dated 26.8.2004 issued by the University. It is not specifically denied by the University that such letter was not issued. It was also stated in para-4 of the reply filed by the petitioner before the Chancellor. This aspect has not been considered.

4. The second ground relates to giving 50% seats to the management quota. The petitioner in para-26 of the writ petition as well as para-7 of his reply, has stated that this was done in pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court reported in 2005(6) SCC 537; P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharastra. This paragrah has also not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the University. This aspect has also not been considered.

5. The grounds no. 3 and 4 are vague. It is not indicated as to what procedure was not adopted by the college and which part of the GO dated 9.5.2000 was not implemented by the college.

6. The fifth ground relates to shortage of teacher in the college. The petitioner has annexed the letter dated 30.7.2005 by which 13 teachers have been appointed in the University. This letter has also not been considered by the Chancellor while passing the impugned order.

7. In view of the above, the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by the Chancellor is not sustainable and is quashed. The matter is sent back for reconsideration which may done at an early date, if possible, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It will be open to the Chancellor to obtain a report from the University before passing any order. The petitioner will also be entitled to file application for interim orders before the Chancellor.

8. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.

Date: 19.9.2006

SKS


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.