Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh And Others vs Guru Nanak Dev University And Others on 29 November, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
LPA No.1793 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1793 of 2012
Date of Decision:29.11.2012
Gurpreet Singh and others
...... Appellants
Versus
Guru Nanak Dev University and others
...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
****
Present: Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Advocate for the appellants.
****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The respondent Khalsa College, Amritsar, affiliated to the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, initiated the process of admitting students to its M.Sc Agriculture (Hons.) (Agriculture Economics) course (for short "the course"). The seven co-petitioners in the writ petition applied for admission by depositing the registration fees of Rs 2000/- each. On the date of counselling on 27.06.2012, the college deferred admissions to 02.07.2012 on the ground that the number of applicants were much less than the available seats. Another attempt was made by the college on 10.07.2012, when lack of students persisted and the admission process to the course was abandoned.
The petitioners approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction to compel the college to admit the petitioners to the course and to command the institute to run the post graduate programme.
LPA No.1793 of 2012 2
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the finding that the decision making process to discontinue the course is not defective to warrant Court interference. It has been observed in the order of the learned Single Judge of this court dated 26.9.2012 impugned in the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, 1919 that running of a particular academic course or its discontinuance is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the University and the private college. In any case the action of the respondent-college in terminating the course for the time being is not actuated by malice.
Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioners/appellants submitted that the college is a private aided college and receives grants from the Union Grants Commission as is evident from the web-site of the college, the downloads whereof are appended to the writ petition and, therefore, it can be compelled by mandamus to run the course. Learned counsel relies on an admission of the college in its written statement that as per University guidelines a post graduate course can be run when five or more students are available. In the written statement filed, it was asserted that two of the petitioners, now appellants No.2 and 5 are not eligible for admission as they were placed in compartment in terms of Clause 9 of the prospectus and they are, therefore, not entitled to admission to the next class. It is pleaded in the written statement that appellants No.1 and 7 had a gap of one year in their studies and were, therefore, not eligible as well.
In appeal, it is submitted that appellants No.2 and 5 were declared pass in their re-evaluation and, therefore, have a right to admission to the next higher class. Counsel further submits that the course is not an LPA No.1793 of 2012 3 ordinary or common course found in Punjab and is available only at the Khalsa College, Amritsar, and at the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. Shutting the doors of the course on the face of the appellants abruptly is harsh and unjust and would be detrimental to their future career and would result in loss of an academic year since the PG course is spread over two years. He submits that these issues have not been considered or dealt with in the impugned order.
Still further, in paragraph 3 of the written statement, it has been averred that the petitioners-appellants are left three in number well below the minimum five student norm required which justifies discontinuance of the course. On merits, it has been pleaded that the college constituted a committee of four senior teachers to examine the continued viability of the course. The committee recommended in its report dated 5.7.2012 that continuing the course is not a viable proposition due to paucity of students. Their unanimous view was that the following courses, namely, PGDCA, PG Diploma in Financial Services (Banking & Insurance), Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication, M.Sc. (Agriculture Economics) and M.Sc. (Horticulture) should not be started in the interest of the college as it will lead to financial deficit. The Committee recommended that the admission to these courses should not be made for the session 2012-13. The proceeding of the committee has been appended to the written statement (Annexure R-3/2). It has been further disclosed in paragraph 5 of the written statement filed by respondent Khalsa College, Amritsar that in the year 2011, the course was abandoned since the number of candidates were only three. The norms laid down by the affiliating University though requires a minimum five students to run a post graduate course yet for LPA No.1793 of 2012 4 private aided colleges where such colleges have not employed teachers for additional work load, it is not feasible to start the course with lesser number of students. In case, the college is compelled to start M.Sc. (Agriculture Economics) course with three students, the college would have to employ three qualified teachers, may be on ad hoc basis, whose collective salary during one year would amount to Rs 7,92,000/- whereas the total fee and income during the year receivable from three students' fee would be no more than Rs 1,29,000/-. It is, thus, pleaded that it would not be economically viable for the college to run the course with three students and put itself to huge financial loss. The 95% grant-in-aid received by the respondent Khalsa College is for permanent teachers and not for teachers appointed on ad hoc basis, the salary for whom would have to be paid out of the private self financing pocket of the college unsupported by external aid. Neither NAAC nor UGC provide grants to meet salary of the teachers. In the circumstances, the college prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants we do not find any merit in this appeal or any reason warranting interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. Just as no one has an indefeasible right to appointment, no student would have a vested, accrued or indefeasible right to admission to a seat. No promise was made to the petitioners by either the college or the University that the course would be continued come hail, rain or snow. We think that the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that no mandamus could be issued to the college to continue with the course which was terminated for justifiable reasons and without there being any flaw in the decision making process or presence of malice or malafides in LPA No.1793 of 2012 5 the ultimate decision. It is also doubtful whether any direction to Khalsa College, a private though aided institution, to continue or discontinue a course of study, can be issued or would be maintainable in writ jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine as not warranting admission for regular hearing.
( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA )
JUDGE JUDGE
29.11.2012
rajeev