Karnataka High Court
Sri Belimatha Mahasamsthana Institute ... vs Visveswaraiah Technological ... on 23 June, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(4)KARLJ623, 2005 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2972, (2005) 4 KANT LJ 623
Author: R. Gururajan
Bench: R. Gururajan
ORDER R. Gururajan, J.
1. Petitioner-Belimatha Mahasamsthana Institute of Technology is before me seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash an order at Annexure-O, dated 19-11-2004 passed by the respondent in addition to a direction to grant affiliation to the petitioner-college for the academic year 2004-05 onwards in the case on hand.
2. Facts in brief are as under:
Petitioner-college is managed and controlled by Sri Belimatha Mahasamsthana Education Trust. Petitioner-college is an unaided private education institution. The object of the Institution whose aims and objects include creation of institutions for the advancement of knowledge, etc. Petitioner-college is in existence right from 1997-98. Approval was granted to conduct courses in Computer Science and Engineering, Electronic and Communication Engineering, Information, Science and Technology and Medical Electronics by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the Bangalore University from the academic year 1997-98. Now the college is affiliated to the Visveswaraiah Technology University (VTU) from the academic year 1998-99 onwards. AICTE after having satisfied itself with regard to facilities and infrastructure etc., available with the petitioner granted approval to the petitioner-college. In the light of the high standard maintained by the petitioner-college, there Was a gradual increase in the intake of the students and at present AICTE has granted approval for the subjects with revised intake of 240 students.
3. Petitioner-college thereafter made an application to the AICTE seeking recognition/permission to start the course in Master of Computer Application (MCA). Same was granted. Petitioner is granted affiliation since 1998-99 onwards up to 2003-04.
4. Respondent visited the college and a report was submitted by the Local Inquiry Committee (LIC). Petitioner submitted his reply to the observations. Committee revisited the petitioner and issued a letter to the petitioner seeking compliance and fulfillment. Petitioner submitted compliance report. Petitioner having made substantial improvements with regard to the college submitted yet another updated compliance report in terms of Annexure-H. Petitioner believed that the compliance would be accepted in its true sense and all the improvements made therein would be taken note of by the respondent and affiliation would be granted to the petitioner. Respondent visited the college once again on 16-6-2004 and report was prepared. Thereafter, on 7-7-2004 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking cause as to why affiliation is not to be withdrawn. A detailed reply was submitted. A further visit was made by the respondent on 5-11-2004. Petitioner also handed over to the LIC various documents with regard to the improvements in the matter. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, respondent withdrew the affiliation and status of recognition to the petitioner-college and further directed the students of the petitioner-college to be transferred to other affiliated colleges of the University in terms of Annexure-O. This order is challenged in this petition.
5. Notice was issued. Respondents entered Caveat. Petitioner filed additional affidavit on 3-12-2004 with regard to compliance in the matter.
6. Statement of objection was filed on 5-1-2005. It is stated therein that a Local Inquiry Committee inspected the petitioner-college on 8-9-2003 and gave its recommendation for extension of its affiliation for the academic year 2004-05. A report was submitted to the effect that the college has not complied with any of the conditions prescribed by the previous inspection committee. In order to grant some more time to make good the deficiencies and to obtain the continuation of affiliation, the LIC recommended that the University may arrange for reinspection of the petitioner-college by a committee preferably the same committee after about two months. University once again constituted LIC under the Chairmanship of Professor B.N. Krishnamurthy. The LIC visited the petitioner-college on 18-11-2003. Deficiencies were noticed again. Committee recommended to send one more committee for verification. Thereafter, a request was made to comply with the deficiencies by the University. A compliance report was submitted on 11-3-2004. A Committee was sent again to verify the claim in the matter. LIC observed that the college authorities had not taken seriously the reports of the previous committees and recommended against the continuation of affiliation for BE and MCA Degree courses for the year 2004-05. Thereafter, the Executive Council resolved to accept the recommendation of the LIC and resolved to issue show-cause notice in the matter. Show-cause notice was also issued on 7-7-2004 calling upon the college to show cause within 15 days as to why the affiliation granted to the college is not to be withdrawn. A reply was sent by the petitioner. One more Local Inquiry Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. C.E.G. Justo visited the petitioner-college on 5-11-2004 and submitted its report with its observation that the petitioner-college has not taken any serious efforts to improve the deficiencies pointed out by the previous committees and observed that they were quite distressed regarding the Infrastructure in terms of laboratory facilities, library, faculty and teaching-learning process. LIC reported that the college is in a very bad shape inspite of its existence for more than 7 years. The Executive Committee thereafter considered the matter and ultimately resolved to accept the recommendation of the Academic Senate to withdraw the affiliation granted to the petitioner. An order was passed in this regard. University has justified its stand in the matter. On 11-1-2005 an affidavit was filed before this Court and in the affidavit, petitioner undertook to comply with all objections as raised by the respondent before the start of the academic session or within such date as stipulated by this Court in the matter. Petitioner also filed a memo before the Court on 11-4-2005 to this effect. University submitted one more report in terms of the direction of the Court. Objections were filed by the petitioner on 1-5-2005.
7. Petitioner filed certain documents in support of its submission. Matter was heard for final disposal. After arguments were heard, an affidavit was filed by the University stating that there is no compliance and that the petition has to be dismissed.
8. Matter is heard on several dates.
9. Sri Ravi Malimath, learned Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the material facts to say that the respondent in the case on hand has issued the impugned order without proper consideration of material available on record. He refers to various material on record to say that the petitioner did comply with all the deficiencies and despite the same, the authorities are finding fault with the petitioner. He says that the facts of the case would warrant continuance of affiliation in the larger interest of the college and students. Learned Counsel would say that in terms of Section 20, no power is available to the respondent to withdraw the affiliation. He would further argue that in terms of Section 43(8), the present endorsement suffers from legal deficiencies in terms of the provisions.
10. Matter was again listed for further hearing. He would again invite my attention to the ranking of the students and the academic standards maintained by the institution. He says that at least the petitioner should be permitted to continue the existing pattern in the larger interest of the students. Sri Malimath while concluding would say that there is substantial compliance of the deficiencies and that therefore, interference is necessary.
11. Per contra, Sri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent would invite my attention to various inspection reports to say that the petitioner is not serious about the deficiencies pointed out from time to time by the committee. At every point of time compliance report is given and the compliance report is factually no compliance at all. He would say that in such circumstances, this Court has to reject the petition in the larger interest of the students as otherwise, the students would be the victims on account of non-availability of infrastructure facilities. So far as Section 20 is concerned, learned Counsel would say that Section 20(w) would provide jurisdiction and it is certainly available to the respondent. Coming to the argument of Section 43(2) and (3) he would only say that there exists a printer's mistake and that cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner. While concluding, he would request the Court to dismiss the petition.
12. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. Admittedly, petitioner is before me seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 19-11-2004, Annexure-O passed by the University after inspection and after accepting the report in the matter of disaffiliation of the college and transfer of students to other affiliated colleges of the University.
13. Visveswaraiah Technological University Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'), is an Act established for the development of Engineering Technology and allied sciences. The purpose of the Act is to ensure proper and systematic instruction, teaching, training and research in development of Engineering Technology and allied sciences. Therefore, the core object of the entire Act is to see that proper teaching, training, etc., is provided in the matter of Engineering education. For the said purpose, a separate University has been createa with certain powers and functions to the University. Chapter V provides for the officers of the University viz. The Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar, the Registrar (Evaluation), Finance Officer and other Officers. The Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of three persons who are outstanding in the field of Engineering Technology or education. Powers of the Vice-Chancellor are prescribed under Section 14. Chapter VI defines authorities of the University viz. The Executive Council and the Academic. Senate. The Executive Council shall consist of Vice-Chancellor, Secretary to Government in-charge of Higher Education, five persons representing Industry/Business, Trade/Educational Experts nominated by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor. Out of them one must belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, one to Backward Community and one to religious minorities. Executive Council has the necessary powers and functions to approve the financial estimates of the Universities submitted by the Vice-Chancellor; to hold and control the property and funds of the University; receive, transfer or dispose of any moveable or immovable property on behalf of the University; administration of public and private funds; appointment of officers, teachers and other employees of the University, investment of money, etc. Constitution of the Academic Senate is provided in terms of Section 22.
14. With this establishment and with this control of power in terms of the Act, let me see as to whether the petitioner has made out a case for my interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's essential arguments are three fold: (1) want of power; (2) scope of Section 43; and (3) merits of the matter. Let me see the first argument of the learned Counsel.
15. Want of power.--Sri Ravi Malimath after referring to the entire material on record contended specifically that in terms of Section 20 of the Act there existed no power in the matter of disaffiliation in terms of the present material. Admittedly in the case on hand, the order has been passed on the proceedings initiated by the Executive Council in terms of the proceedings. Executive Council issued a show-cause notice calling for explanation and thereafter, recommended for withdrawal of affiliation. Whether this procedure is in terms of Section 20 or not is required to be considered in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel. As I mentioned earlier, there are several authorities with several powers and functions in terms of the Act. The powers and functions of the Executive Council is elaborately mentioned in Section 20. Sub-clause (w) reads as under:
"to be in-charge of the academic affairs of the University and subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes exercise general power of superintendence direction and control and be responsible for the maintenance of academic standards of instructions, education, research, extension and examinations and other matters connected with the conferment of degrees or award of diplomas, and exercise such other powers and such other duties as may be conferred on it by the statutes".
A reading of the said clause would show that the Executive Council cannot be said to have no power with regard to disaffiliation of the college as argued by the Counsel. It is an exhaustive provision available with regard to the academics of the University. It provides for general power of superintendence, direction and control and be responsible for the maintenance of academic standards of instructions, education, etc. Such an exhaustive power in terms of Section 20(w) cannot be said to be no power at all for the purpose of disaffiliation of a college in terms of disobedience of the instructions in terms of the proceedings. Therefore, this argument has to be rejected and I do so in the case on hand.
16. Scope of Section 48(2).--Learned Counsel elaborately argued that Section 43 has not been complied with in the case on hand before passing the order. Section 43 reads as under:
"43. Withdrawal of affiliation.--(1) The rights conferred on a college as a Constituent College of the University may be withdrawn in whole or in part or modified if the college has failed to comply with the provisions made in this behalf or the college has failed to observe any of the conditions of affiliation or the college is conducted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interests of education.
(2) Before taking steps to withdraw affiliation of any college or institute, the Executive Council shall send a copy of the notice and a written statement to the Principal of the College concerned calling for any representation in writing, within a period specified in such intimation for consideration of the Executive Council.
(3) On receipt of the representation or on the expiry of the period referred to in Sub-section (2) the Board of Governors, after considering the statement and representation and after such inspection any competent person or persons authorised by it in this behalf and such further enquiry as may appear to it to be necessary, pass a resolution withdrawing the recognition and the status given to the college or institution as a constituent college or institution of the University".
It provides for power of withdrawal of affiliation. Sub-section (2) provides for a procedure in terms of the proviso. Withdrawal of affiliation is provided in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 43 in the event of the college failing to comply with the provisions made in this behalf or the college having failed to observe any of the conditions of affiliation or the college is conducted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interests of education. Noticing the state of affairs inspections were conducted in the interest of the students. After obtaining the reports, the Executive Council issued notice of show cause in terms of Sub-section (2). A representation was also obtained in this regard. After representation in terms of Sub-section (3) Executive Council (Board of Governors)? and after such inspection any competent person or persons authorised by it in this behalf and further enquiry may be necessary pass a resolution withdrawing the recognition and status given to the college. In the case on hand, it is seen that in the printed book it is shown as Board of Governors. Much argument has been advanced that there is no Board of Governors available in terms of Chapter XI and that therefore, the present order runs counter to Section 43(3). After noticing this, a query was posed to the learned Counsel for the University and the learned Counsel would say that it is only a printer's mistake and that could be made much of in this petition. Therefore, though the book mentions Board of Governors, it must definitely be a printer's mistake as rightly argued by Sri Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Counsel. Where the Act does not specifically provide for Board of Governors and that Section 43 provides for a procedure of notice by the Executive Council and consideration by the Executive Council who can pass orders, the mere printing of Board of Governors is required to be discarded and instead this Court has to read into it the words 'Executive Council', as otherwise no withdrawal of affiliation is possible. This super technical objection by the petitioner taking advantage of printer's mistake cannot be accepted for the grant of relief in the case on hand. However, I deem it proper to observe that the Government is to be careful to avoid any such printer's mistakes. Therefore, I do not give much importance to the printer's mistake in the case on hand. This finding of mine finds support in terms of Sub-section (2) itself. The consideration is by Executive Council. Therefore, Sri Patil, the learned Counsel's argument has some weight in the matter. This argument is rejected. The order cannot be nullified on this ground.
17. Merits of the matter.--Before touching upon the merits of the matter, this Court has to take note of the real situation available as on today in the matter of professional education. Professional education to a certain extent has become commercial Bazaar education. Courts can notice that the Bazaars of college education has become a big business these days, particularly professional education. Several people are interested in starting educational institutions for the purpose of making money out of education. In the process, not only education suffers but the country as a whole suffers on account of deterioration in education and educational values. With this laudable object, stricter vigil and stricter measures are introduced by State Governments in the interest of better education. Inspections are provided to see that commercial education in institutions in the absence of infrastructure/facilities, etc., is shown the door after following the procedure. In the case on hand, from the material available on record, it is seen that the institution is granted affiliation from time to time. Petitioner has been provided revised approved intake by the Government. However, at the time of granting the extension, deficiencies are noticed and improvements are suggested. Deficiencies noticed are shortfall areas: less computers, shortfall of staff, journals as per AICTE norms, shortfall of Professor, shortfall of Assistant Professors and shortfall of Lecturers.
18. Petitioner made an application seeking for affiliation for the academic year 2004-05. Application was received. After noticing the application, the Registrar has stated that the Local Inquiry Committee visited the college on 18-11-2003 for the grant of continuation/extension of affiliation for the academic year 2004-05. Report was placed before the Executive Council. Executive Council has observed the following deficiencies/shortcomings/drawbacks:
"1. The Principal is also appointed as the director of both the Engineering colleges run by the trust;
2. No qualified Professor is working in any of the departments;
3. Advertisement calling for appointments for the post of faculty positions has been made on 8-10-2003;
4. Details regarding the number of applications received were not produced;
5. No perceptible improvement is made regarding the faculty strength. At present there are only 30 faculty members with a staff student ratio of 1:32;
6. Only six faculty members are given AICTE scale of pay with reduced D.A.;
7. The non-teaching staff strength is highly inadequate;
8. No qualified librarian has been appointed till now;
9. No separate reference section is made available for the students;
10. No. of volumes are inadequate in the library;
11. Furniture in the computer laboratory (computer chairs) need immediate replacement;
12. The computer laboratory is highly congested;
13. The staff room facility is not proper including that of the Principal;
14. No physical education instructor is appointed till now;
15. No proper sports facility is available in the campus;
16. The workshop working tables need immediate replacement with proper chip guards; and
17. Classrooms provided are not adequate for sixty students".
19. Petitioner was asked to send the compliance report on or before 13-3-2004. Compliance was sent by the petitioner. In the compliance it is stated that principal is appointed; an advertisement is issued calling for applications for teaching staff; faculty members are given consolidated salary; after completion of probation D.A. would be given; further additions would be made; librarian post is advertised; orders have been placed for more books; orders have been placed for computer chairs; staff has been provided sitting rooms in the extension to the main building; advertisement is issued for Physical Education Director; no pavilion is available etc. Thereafter a compliance report updated was sent as per Annexure-H with details. Thereafter, one more inspection was done by the LIC. The University thereafter on 7th July, 2004 in the light of the reports dated 8-9-2003, 18-11-2003, 16-6-2004 and also in the light of the compliance report dated 20-5-2004 stated that the Executive Council having notified several shortcomings/drawbacks has resolved to issue show-cause notice seeking for an explanation as to why the affiliation granted to the college should not be withdrawn.
20. The observations of the 3rd Committee are: appointment of a Professor of 70 years age as against the age limit of 62 years; except for the Principal, no other staff possessed Ph.D degree; College does not possess any bye-laws as approved by its trust (management) governing the service conditions of teachers and other staff working in the college; for the total student strength of 960, there are only 25 teaching faculty as against a requirement of 64 teaching staff as per AICTE norms; acquittance role not maintained; staff are paid consolidated salary; no D.A. to staff; lacking facilities in library; librarian and Physical Education Director are paid low salary; no improvement in furniture of computer and other laboratories; staff rooms and Principal's chamber are not of proper size and required facilities; no improvement in sports facilities; workshop tables not been replaced; no improvement in classrooms; computer laboratory congested; for MCA course not even a single faculty is identified. Notice also stated that the college has not taken serious note of the reports of the previous committees. On receipt of the same, the college has stated that a few lapses however have occurred. They are being rectified. Teachers above 60 years of age are appointed; copy of bye-laws is being prepared; staff strength as on date is poor, advertisement is issued, maintenance of acquittance role is rectified; special care is taken in the library; sports facilities are developed; staff rooms are being established; workshop tables are being replaced; congestion is being relieved; more staff is being recruited. Thereafter, after this reply dated 19th July, 2004, the 4th Committee again visited on 5-11-2004 for inspection and submitted its report and the Committee stated that the college has not made any serious effort to improve the deficiencies suggested by the previous committees. They also stated that the students are quite distressed about the infrastructure facilities. It was in those circumstances, Executive Council in its meeting held on 9-11-2004 has resolved as under:
"After detailed deliberations on the issue and after considering the report of the Local Inquiry Committee which visited the college, Executive Council resolved to accept the recommendation of the Academic Senate to withdraw the affiliation granted by VTU to Sri Belimatha Mahasamsthana Institute of Technology, Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District on the ground of lack of infrastructure facilities and deteriorating working conditions of the college. Also Executive Council accepted the recommendations of the Academic Senate to distribute the students studying in the college to other affiliation college of VTU".
21. Taking note of the same, the Executive Council after obtaining the report and after obtaining the explanation ordered that affiliation has to be withdrawn in whole with immediate effect. This order is passed on 19-11-2004. From the order it is clear that the respondent has not taken a decision immediately. It has taken a decision after 3 or 4 Committees reports and after providing sufficient opportunities to the petitioner in terms of the Committees' recommendation that the teaching faculty, infrastructure facilities, sports facilities are not available. Even the teaching staff is not fully provided the required salary in terms of the norms fixed by the petitioner and in some cases they are not even paying D.A. to the staff. Therefore, even the existing teaching staff may not continue there. With this type of standard the University thought that the interest of the students is not safe with the college. The order also provides for transfer of the students to other colleges for the purpose of examinations. It was in these circumstances as a final resort, they have resorted to pass this order. No ill-will or malice is attributed to the Executive Council or to anyone of the members of the LIC. In fact, the college itself has admitted some of the lapses in terms of its pleadings.
22. Let me also see the further development for the purpose of deciding this case.
23. Writ petition was filed before this Court and the matter was listed before this Court on 30th November, 2004. Matter was heard on 30-11-2004. Caveat was entered by the University. University stated that the lapses continued. He was asked to give a report to the petitioner Counsel. Matter was again listed on 3-12-2004. The subsequent report dated 5-11-2004 was provided and he has filed on affidavit in Court. Matter was adjourned. Thereafter, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in the interest of the students. It was continued till 10-1-2005. It was again continued till 21-4-2005. A submission was made that admissions are likely to be made by the college and after noticing the submissions made on 7-1-2005 this Court directed that no further admissions are to be made by the petitioner. Matter was subsequently posted from time to time.
24. A clarificatory order was passed on 28-1-2005. In the clarificatory order this Court stated that status quo would not mean the stay of the impugned order; students undergoing courses as of today are permitted to continue their studies and they are further permitted to take up the examination to be held in February-March. This Court also thought that in the interest of parties to make one more inspection in the light of the facts of the case and submit its report on or before 10th April, 2005. Petitioner-college was prevented from making further admissions in terms of the order dated 7-1-2005 in the matter. Thereafter, inspection was carried out and the report was filed. Objections were also filed. Time was taken. Examinations are now over. It appears an appeal was filed and the appeal was not entertained. Thereafter, the matter is heard further as I mentioned earlier.
25. Even after the impugned order is passed in terms of the order of this Court, a further inspection was conducted and further report was filed. A new committee went into the question and the new committee has noticed that Prof. Kumar retired on 31-1-2005. Prof. Madhava Rao resigned, Prof. Yoga Chandra has joined as Professor and Head Prof. Yoga Chandra does not have the qualification and specialization to become Professor of E and C; Administrative manual is submitted without authenticated signatures; a total number of 38 faculty members were on roll; out of the 38 members, 3 faculty members did not have the required qualification to become lecturers as per AICTE norms; the required faculty strength is 76 for an intake of 1140; the present staff is wholly inadequate; nobody has been given AICTE scales of pay with applicable DA, HRA and CCA; however a few faculty members have been paid AICTE basic pay with only 40% allowances; others are paid a meagre consolidated salary; acquittance rolls are not maintained as per norms; two acquittance rolls are maintained - one for PF Scheme and other for non-PF Scheme. 8 journals are procured which is insufficient; Librarian is still paid low consolidated salary; no improvement in furniture; space for staff room inadequate; no improvement in sports facilities and they have also stated the grievance of the students such as no girls and boys common room facility; not enough books in library; inadequate water facility; service charge of Rs. 50/- is collected along with VTU Exam fee; no fans in the lab; inadequate security in the girls hostel; no campus recruitment activity; an internet fee of Rs. 1,000/- has been collected but the facility seems to be inadequate; frequent change of lecturers, etc. The Committee did not recommend continuation of affiliation for the academic year 2005-2006. The Executive Committee accepted the recommendation and directed submission of the same to the High Court. For this a reply was submitted and certain explanations have been given and the college wanted the report to be discarded.
26. At the time of arguments, the petitioner Counsel placed before me certain documents. It is stated that one student has ranked 10th rank and there are several students who have secured I Class with a distinction in the examination held in July 2004 etc. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments stated that in terms of the Apex Court ruling, the Court may consider the satisfactory compliance of the deficiencies pointed out by the University. He relies on Al-Karim Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., . In that case, the Apex Court was considering a case of affiliation in the matter. The Court in its order at para 11 found that the affiliation was being withheld unreasonably or the decision was being prolonged for one reason or the other, therefore, the Court would reluctantly be constrained to exercise jurisdiction and that this did not mean that the importance of fulfilling the essential prerequisite set by the Medical Council before granting recognition is diluted. The facts in that case are as under.
27. Colleges in Bihar filed writ petitions to accord recognition to the appellant-colleges which was within the purview of L.N. Mithila University and allow its students to appear in the first part M.B.B.S. examination conducted by the said University. By a majority decision, the High Court held that the provisions of the Bihar Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Act, will apply to the Medical College of the appellants' Society, that the said statute does not infringe the fundamental rights and that the Court is not competent to issue a mandamus directing the University to appear for the examination conducted by the University unless the statutory requirements with regard to the permission and affiliation are fully complied with. The application, if any, filed by the appellants was directed to be disposed of within a specified time. Writ petition was dismissed. Appellant went to Supreme Court. Affiliation was not granted. Appellants filed a writ petition. The same was dismissed. They again approached the Supreme Court. The matter was pending from time to time. There are several developments in the said case as I see from the factual narrations in the body of the judgment. Several affidavits have been filed, several reports have been obtained. Supreme Court in para 11 has ruled as under:
"In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State Government after consulting the Medical Council of India to arrive at a decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other, this Court would though reluctantly be constrained to exercise jurisdiction. We make it clear that we are not diluting the importance of fulfilling the essential prerequisite set by the Medical Council before granting recognition. Facts of this case are very special and exceptional. In the present case, we take note of the following aspects:
(a) The appellant-Institution was granted temporary affiliation nearly 6 years ago (29-12-1989);
(b) More than three years ago (on 16-7-1992), this Court directed that students may be admitted and permitted to take examination, subject to certain conditions and this has been so done;
(c) In view of the earlier orders of this Court dated 28-9-1993, the only question that survives for consideration is whether affiliation should be granted to the appellants;
(d) On more than three occasions, this Court, after perusal of the affidavits of the parties and report of the authorities concerned about the deficiencies pointed out, directed time-bound inspections, by Medical Council of India, along with other authorities bearing in mind that we are concerned with the post-establishment stage;
(e) At one stage, it came to light that the original deficiencies having been removed, new or further deficiencies were pointed out by the Medical Council of India, which were ordered by this Court to be removed;
(f) Finally, the appellants filed a tabular statement along with an affidavit dated 4-9-1995, stating that even the new deficiencies pointed out have been removed and the averments in the behalf stand uncontradicted;
(g) The appellants claim to be a minority institution and the difficulties/or even the imponderables to start a new institution cannot be gainsaid. To insist on fulfilling all requirements at a stretch in modern conditions is not a practical proposition and ordinarily, only those aspects or requirements, which in the minimal will give a good start for effectively imparting education, with ancillary requisites may be considered sufficient in the extraordinary circumstances of this case;
(h) It is impractical to insist, for a foolproof or absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance, for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the Institution has begun to function, students admitted to the Institution have taken the examination and the fate of a good many number of students should not hang in the balance in an unending or everlasting manner;
(i) In the final analysis, the question to be posed is whether there exists the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going, and not whether better arrangements that will render the set up more efficient and more satisfactory, should be insisted as "a wodden" rule;
(j) It may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and there which call for rectification. Time can certainly set right such matters. What is required is a total, practical, overall view in the light of the latest tabular statement filed along with the affidavit dated 4-9-1995. Material placed before the Court goes to show that there has been 'substantial' though not literal compliance with the deficiencies pointed out in the latest report dated 28-6-1995; and
(k) Lapse of time and the turn of events call for urgent action and any delay on that score will entail untold hardship to the students and the institution".
(emphasis supplied) Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the totality of circumstances disclosed and having regard to the fact that at each stage new deficiencies are being pointed out, the latest being the report dated 28-6-1995, satisfied itself beyond any manner of doubt that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with. This judgment has to be read in the context of the facts involved in that case. In fact, in that case, Supreme Court itself has noticed that the facts of that case were special and exceptional. Supreme Court has also made it very clear that it was not diluting the importance of fulfilling the essential prerequisite set by the Medical Council before granting recognition. It was under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Supreme Court granted the relief. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel that there is substantial compliance in the case on hand cannot be accepted by this Court.
28. In the case on hand there were nearly more than 5 inspections and at every stage they found that there were lack of facilities available in the college. When the expert bodies after inspection in their wisdom gave a finding against the college, this Court cannot lightly treat them and rule that there is compliance or substantial compliance in terms of the arguments. In fact the entire material on record would show that there is no required staff and the staff are being changed every year. The ratio as mentioned by the Committees are wanting, facilities are lacking. In such an atmosphere, if students are allowed to study in the college, then grave injustice would be done to those students. This Court in this matter has to safeguard the invisible student community who are not before this Court. In a matter of this type, the Court has to take into consideration the non-party students and their interest as otherwise this Court will be failing in its constitutional duty in providing justice to them. It is they who are vitally affected. Their interest has to be protected. Their interests are protected by the University and its agencies. When that agency repeatedly holds that there is violation, this Court cannot sit in appeal and provide relief to the petitioner. A few students getting ranks by itself, would not be sufficient to grant relief to the petitioner. Those students are to be congratulated for getting ranks despite want of facilities in the college. Therefore, from the material on record, unfortunately for the petitioner in terms of the committee reports do not support any continuation of affiliation in terms of the orders of the college. The order is passed in the larger interest of the students only and that interest cannot be jeopardised. Their interest has to be protected. The impugned order is based on facts.
29. At this stage, I must also notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College, . In the said judgment, the Supreme Court in para 11 has cautioned that the conclusion of the expert body should not be lightly tinkered with by Court of law without giving due weightage to the conclusion arrived at by such expert body. That caution applies to this case as well. Under the circumstances and despite the best efforts of the learned Counsel Sri Ravi Malimath, it is not possible for this Court to dilute the standards for the benefit of the college. If the college does not stand upto the expectations of the authority, the College alone has to be blamed as the college has to maintain better standards in professional education.
30. In these circumstances, this petition stands rejected. No costs.