Punjab-Haryana High Court
Adhiyamaan Educational & Research ... vs The Maharshi Dayanand University, ... on 12 March, 2003
JUDGMENT N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This order will be read in continuation of the orders dated October 23, 2001 and October 18, 2002.
2. The Expert Committee constituted by the Bar Council of India consisting of the representatives of the University as well has submitted its report which is on the record. In the light of this report the learned counsel appearing for the University contends that the only drawback which the petitioner-Management has in running the institute is that the members of the Faculty have not been appointed as per the norms laid down by the Bar Council of India and the University Grants Commission. No other infirmity has been pointed out except that the petitioner has not deposited the endowment fund. This fact is not disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. He contends that all eligible and duly qualified members of the staff have been appointed on temporary basis because regular selections could not be made in the absence of the representatives of the University. His grievance is tat even though the Management is willing to constitute a regular selection committee but it cannot make the selection unless the University sends its nominees to attend the meetings. He further contends that the University refused to send its nominees on the plea that the petitioner-institute has not been granted affiliation.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and agree with the learned counsel for the University that the petitioner-institute must have a properly selected Faculty as per the norms laid down by the Bar Council of India and the University Grants Commission. This can happen only if it constitutes a selection committee as per the Rules and the University sends its nominees. I, therefore, direct the petitioner-Management to set up a committee and intimate the same to the University. This shall be done within six weeks. On receipt of the intimation by the University, it will nominate its representatives on the selection committee and communicate their names to the petitioner-institute within two weeks thereafter. The selection committee will then meet and make regular selections of the staff members as per the Rules and Regulations governing the same. This process must be completed on or before June 30, 2003. The names of the members of the staff who are selected by the selection committee will then be sent to the University for approval and the same shall be granted i accordance with the Rules within four weeks thereafter. It is, however, made clear that the entire selection process will; be conducted by the selection committee and the petitioner-Management in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the University. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners undertakes to deposit the endowment fund as and when the University informs the Management. In this view of the matter, the impugned order refusing affiliation to the petitioner-institute is quashed and the University directed to grant affiliation forthwith subject to the condition that the Management will recruit regularly selected members of the staff as aforesaid. This order will be without prejudice to the rights of the parties, if any, which they may have in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481.
4. The writ petition stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs.