Allahabad High Court
Jai Maa Vaishno Pharmacy College Thru. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 4 February, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7054 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 625 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jai Maa Vaishno Pharmacy College Thru. Auth. Sign. Sandeep Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Tech. Edu. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1, Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 3 & 4.
2. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties no.3 and 4 is taken on record.
3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 06.01.2025 so far as it relates to withdrawal of affiliation granted earlier to petitioner institution for B-Pharm Course for the academic session 2024-25. Also under challenge are proceedings of Affiliation Committee dated 19.12.2024, particularly Item No. 11.06 and for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner institution to admit students for the aforesaid course for the academic session 2024-25.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier with regard to grant of affiliation for the aforesaid course, an inspection took place on 17.03.2024 in which certain discrepancies were found due to which a show cause notice was issued on 22.05.2024. The said deficiencies were thereafter made good due to which affiliation was granted to petitioner institution on 02.12.2024 whereafter physical inspection of the institution took place on 12.12.2024 and recommendations were made by the Committee Members with regard to affiliation.
5. It is submitted that despite such recommendation having been made, impugned order has been passed withdrawing the earlier affiliation granted to petitioner institution.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid procedure adopted by opposite parties is contrary to Chapter-5 of the U.P. Technical Universities Act, 2000 whereunder a notice was required to be issued to institution indicating specific deficiencies and granting an opportunity to correct such deficiencies. It is submitted that a perusal of the Minutes of Meeting dated 19.12.2024 will, however, indicate that completely vague deficiencies have been indicated with regard to institution, which could not have been a ground for passing of impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for Pharmacy Council of India, on the basis of instructions submits that approval for conduct of aforesaid courses for academic session 2024-25 has already been granted and the current dispute pertains only to grant of affiliation by State Government and University concerned.
8. Learned State Counsel has also adopted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for University with the additional submission that impugned order has been passed on the basis of recommendations made by University in terms of Item No. 11.06 of the recommendations dated 19.12.2024.
9. Learned counsel for opposite parties no.3 and 4 on the basis of short counter affidavit submits that various discrepancies were found during inspection of the institute in the inspection carried out on 17.03.2024 whereafter a show cause notice was also issued on 22.05.2024 but the discrepancies as indicated were not removed by institution and inadvertently the affiliation was granted on 02.12.2024, the rectification of which is underway. It is submitted that even in the recommendations indicated in the Minutes of Meeting dated 19.12.2024, there are certain discrepancies indicated.
10. It is also submitted that even as per the affiliation order dated 02.12.2024, the affiliation granted was conditional subject to removal of all discrepancies indicated in the inspection and since such the said deficiencies have not been removed by institution concerned, the impugned order has been passed.
11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the inspection report dated 17.03.2024, it is evident that various discrepancies and shortcomings pertaining to institute were indicated upon inspection. It also appears that subsequent thereto, a show cause notice dated 22.05.2024 was issued to the institute whereafter conditional affiliation was granted on 02.12.2024.
12. The Minutes of Meeting dated 19.12.2024 indicate a discrepancy to the effect that members of inspecting committee have made a recommendation for grant of affiliation to petitioner institute but as per Item No. 11.06 of the Minutes of Meeting dated 19.12.2024 by the Affiliation Committee of the University, the earlier grant of affiliation has been recommended to be withdrawn.
13. The Minutes of Meeting dated 19.12.2024 with agenda Item No. 11.06, however, does not indicate as to why the grant of affiliation was recommended to be withdrawn in view of recommendation for grant of affiliation by the inspecting committee. Nonetheless, the reasons for same have been explained by opposite parties no.3 and 4 in the short counter affidavit filed today.
14. A perusal of Chapter-5 of the Act of 2000, particularly Section 23 indicates the aspect of affiliation to be granted to colleges. The provisions indicate that the Executive council shall cause every college to be inspected from time to time and a report to be made available to the Executive council which may direct a college so inspected to take such action as it may appear to it to be necessary within a period to be specified. It is also provided that privileges of affiliation of a college which fails to comply with direction of the Executive council or fulfill conditions of affiliation, may be withdrawn or curtailed by the Executive council after obtaining report from the management of the college and with the previous sanction of State Government.
15. The aforesaid provisions, therefore, clearly indicate a procedure whereby in case of any discrepancy or shortcoming of the college concerned with regard to fulfillment of conditions of affiliation, a notice is required to be issued to the college concerned with a specified time required to be granted to such institution for making good such deficiency. It is only when the college concerned fails to act accordingly, that the privileges of affiliation are required to be withdrawn or curtailed with previous sanction of the State Government.
16. In the present case, it is evident that earlier shortcomings with the petitioner institution were indicated on 17.03.2024. It appears that subsequently the affiliation was granted on 02.12.2024, which was conditional upon fulfillment of shortcomings. It is also evident from a perusal of the Minutes of Meeting dated 19.12.2024 that an inspection was carried out subsequent to 12.12.2024 in which the only shortcoming indicated is that library and computational facility requires improvement. It also indicates that new faculties have been recruited, which were uploaded but forms were filled carelessly. Despite such facts being indicated, the inspection committee gave its recommendation for grant of affiliation to petitioner institution.
17. The minutes of meeting dated 19.12.2024, particularly agenda Item No.11.06 thereafter recommends withdrawal of affiliation of petitioner institution without adverting to recommendation made by the inspecting committee. No reason whatsoever has been indicated for taking a stand contrary to that of the inspecting committee recommendation.
18. Even otherwise in terms of Chapter-5 of the Act of 2000, in the considered opinion of this Court, specific shortcomings are required to be indicated to an institution so as to enable it to make good such specific shortcomings.
19. In the present case, the aspect of alleged shortcomings having been indicated as "facilities requiring improvement" are completely vague in nature. Obviously every faculty of facility available even with the best of institutes requires improvement. It would not automatically mean that it is sub-standard or deficient in any manner.
20. For the applicability of Section 23 of the Act of 2000, a specific recommendation is required to be made indicating the specific shortcoming in view of norms which are required to be fulfilled by every institution and grant of affiliation cannot be withdrawn or cancelled or withheld only on such vague grounds.
21. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances and law enunciated, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and without adhering to conditions indicated in Section 23 of the Act of 2000.
22. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 so far as relates to petitioner institution, and the impugned proceedings of Affiliation Committee dated 19.12.2024, particularly agenda Item No. 11.06 so far as it relates to petitioner stands quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and granting liberty to opposite parties no.3 and 4 to act in accordance with Chapter-5 of the Act of 2000 which may entail a further inspection of the premises of institution concerned whereafter appropriate action may be taken. It is made clear that in case any shortcomings are found pertaining to facilities of the institution, the same shall be indicated to institution by written order indicating specifically the shortcomings which are required to be fulfilled in terms of norms applicable upon all institute.
23. Proceeding with regard to same shall be conducted expeditiously.
25. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Satish