Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gowthami Co-Op. Junior College, ... vs Commissioner And Secretary, Board Of ... on 5 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)ALD362, 1999(4)ALT437, AIR 1999 ANDHRA PRADESH 422, (1999) 4 ANDHLD 362 (1999) 4 ANDH LT 437, (1999) 4 ANDH LT 437
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the proceedings in Re. No.86/E3-l/89-90, dated 25-5-1999 issued by the respondent-Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, whereundcr the recognition/affiliation granted to the petitioner-College was disaffitiated under Rule 14(3) as per G.O. Ms. No.29-Education (Rules) dated 5-2-1987 from the academic year 1998-99 and directed the petitioner not to admit any students from the academic year 1999-2000, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondent has no power to cancel the recognition/ permission granted to the petitioner-College, more so under Rule 14(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 issued under G.O. Ms. No.29, Education (Rules), dated 5-2-1987, as the College was started in Co-operative Sector and the rules applicable lo these Colleges are governed by G.O. Ms. No.251, Education (Rules), dated 27-6-1988 and even assuming for a moment that the respondent is having power, the procedure prescribed under Rule 16(1)(b) of the A.P. Sahakara Junior Kalasalala (Registration, Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules, 1988 (G.O. Ms. No.251), was not followed.
3. To appreciate these contentions the factual background of this case has to be looked into. Admittedly, on 12-9-1989, the Chief Promoter of Gowthami Educational Society made a representation to the Hon'ble Minister for Education seeking permission to establish a Co-operative Junior College at Lambadipet, Vijayawada, which is a backward area situated on the outskirts of Vijayawada I town by contending that Vijayawada I town has got a population of three lakhs people and it is having a number of backward areas and that the two junior colleges situated in the locality are not able to meet the requirement of the students. Considering the request of the society, the A.P. State Council of Higher Education in its proceedings No.41/APSCHE/89-5, dated 30-10-1989 provisionally permitted several junior Colleges to be established all over the State including the petitioner-College at Sl.No.7 in the annexure enclosed to the proceedings. In the first paragraph of the proceedings it is stated that provisional permission to the societies mentioned in the annexure to start the Intermediate course is accorded subject to the conditions laid down thereunder. The conditions that are relevant to adjudicate the dispute are Clause Nos.8, 10, 16 and 17. Under Clause 8, the Society shall not violate any of the conditions laid down by the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education/Board of Intermediate Education/Director of Higher Education at the time of according affiliation to the junior kalasala or any other rules issued from time to time. Under Clause 10, the society shall obtain affiliation before starting the kalasala from the Board of Intermediate Education. Under Clause 16, the permission accorded to a society may be withdrawn if it fails to fulfil the conditions stipulated and comply with the instructions issued and rectify the lapses pointed out. Under Clause 17, the Government shall have all the residual powers as well as over-riding powers of control over the society and arc competent to prescribe appropriate guidelines for running the institutions in general. In Ihe anncxure enclosed to the proceedings, it is shown as liereunder at Sl.No.7.
"Gowthami Educational Society, Regd.No. Vijayawada Lambadipeta, Vijayawada. 159 (Urban), Krishna District."
It is not in dispute that after establishing the college at Lambadipet, it was shifted to Satyanarayanapuram around 1994-95 and from there to Krishna Lanka during the year 1997, without the knowledge and prior permission of the respondent. Having come to know about the shifting of the college, the respondent in his letter Rc.No.86/ E3-1/89-90, dated 27-6-1998 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner to explain why action should not be taken for cancellation of the recognition for shifting the college from Lambadipet to Satyanarayanapuram and then to Krishna Lanka, without prior permission from the Board of Intermediate Education. The show-cause notice dated 27-6-1998 is extracted hereunder :
"To Sri K. SuryaNarayana Murthy, Secretary/Correspondent, Gowthami Coop. Jr. College, Krishna Lanka (unauthorised shifted from Lambadipet, Vijayawada) Vijayawpda.
Sir, Sub:--BIE - Academic - Shifting of Gowthami Coop. Jr. College from Lambadipet, Vijayawada during Ihe academic year 1997-98 without prior permission of the B.I.E. -Explanation called for - reg.
Ref:-- I. Your Lr. dated 7-6-1997.
2. VourLr. dated 2-9-1997.
3. RIO, BIE Report dated II-2-1998 and 2-5-1998.
In the reference 1st cited you were staled that the General Body of the College has unanimously resolved to change the College premises from Satyanarayanapuram to Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada and requested to permit to run the College in the new premises. But in the reference 2nd cited you were stated that you have vacated the old premises and shifted to Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.
With reference to your Lr. dated 7-6-1997, the RIO, BIE, Vijayawada was asked to submit the Inspection Report. In the RIO Report dated 11-2-1998 he has stated that the College is not in existence to submit feasibility report and no college in the name of Gowthami Coop. Jr. College at Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada and the College is existing only on papers.
It is also reported by the RIO, BIE, Vijayawada the 29 students of 1st yr. are Benami in nature. Hence you are requested to pay the exemption fee of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.500/- for science and arts students, otherwise pass certificates/ memos pertaining to your college for 1PE/M/98 will not be issued.
Hence, why Ihc disciplinary action should not be taken against you and why the recognition of the College should not be cancelled for shifting the college from Lambadipet to Satyanarayanapuram and Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada without prior permission from the Board of Intermediate Education.
Your explanation should reach to this office on or before 10-7-1998 otherwise the action will be taken as per records available in this office.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
29-6-1998 for Secretary"
From this it is seen that when the petitioner-College filed a representation on 7-6-1997 seeking permission to shift the College from Satyanarayanapuram to Krishna Lanka, the Regional Inspection Officer, Board of Intermediate Education, Vijayawada was asked to submit his report and the RIO, in his report dated 11-2-1998 informed the respondent that the College was not in existence to submit the feasibility report and that no college in the name of Gowthami Coop. Junior College, Vijayawada is existing and the college is only existing on paper. The petitioner submitted its explanation to the show-cause notice on 7-9-1998 by contending that the newly elected management approached the respondent systematically for its shifting to Krishna Lanka and it tried to justify its action for shifting the College to Krishna Lanka.
4. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner-Society once again shifted the College from Krishna Lanka to Gannavaram without prior permission of the Board of Intermediate Education. But, from the File produced before me, it is seen that on 29-1-1999, a representation was filed by the petitioner before the respondent seeking permission to shift the College from Vijayawada urban area to Gannavaram, a mofussil area. On that, the respondent herein called for a report from the RIO, who in his letter in Rc.No.SPl/I/RIO/BlE/98, dated 29-3-1999 stated that he visited the college premises at Gannavaram where Sri Sai Chaitanya Junior College, an unrecognised College is being run with a capacity of 120 students for the academic year 1998-99 and that they were enrolled as regular students in some of the colleges in Vijayawada City. He further stated that "on my visit on 24-3-1999 it is found that no candidate was present on that day and the management placed name board as 'Gowthami Co-op. Jr. College, Gannavaram in the same premises instead of Sri Sai Chaitanya Jr. College. It is understood that the management of Sri Sai Chaitanya Jr. College is colluded with the Gowthami Co-op. Jr. College, Vijayawada to save the benami candidates." He also stated that the management failed to produce the records pertaining to Gowthami Co-op. Jr. College. He further stated that "I submit that there is no College by name Gowthami Co-op. Jr. College in Krishna Lanka. It is only on papers. As per the directions of the BIE, vide Lr.Rc. No.86/E3-l/89-90 dated 27-6-1998 this Office has instructed the management not to make admissions for the academic year 1998-99 until further orders to submit compliance in stipulated time. No reply has been received till to date. The Gowthami Co-op. Jr. College, Vijayawada neither submitted the list of admitted candidates nor showed the admissions record etc. It is understood that there are no admissions during the academic year 1998-99. But while submitting the nominal rolls for I year for IPE April, 1999 in the month of January, 1999 the management approached this office for which this office bluntly refused to receive them. The management shifted the College to Chittinagar, Govemorpet, Satyanarayanapuram, Krishna Lanka in the last four years and now shifted to Gannavaram, without prior permission from the Board, whenever they felt like." In the last, the RIO, concluded that action may be taken against the petitioner-College for making benami admissions from the unrecognised institutions. On the basis of the said report, the impugned order dated 25-5-1999 was passed by the respondent, which is extracted hereunder:
"In the reference 2nd cited, the Secretary and Correspondent of Gauthami Co-op. Jr. College, Lambadipet was served a show-cause notice for shifting their College premises from Lambadipet to different places and to Krishna Lanka without taking prior permission of the BIE for the past 4 years.
The explanation submitted vide reference 2nd cited was not satisfactory.
After serving the show-cause notice, the management was again shifted to Gannavaram without prior permission of BIE.
Therefore the permission/recognition granted to the College is disaffiliated under Rule 14(3) as per the G.O. Ms. No.29 Education (Rules) dated 5-2-1987 from the academic year 1998-99 and you are hereby directed not to admit any students from the academic year 1999-2000 and no further correspondence will be entertained in this matter.
Receipt of the letter may be acknowledged please."
5. Now, the Counsel for the petitioner tried to justify the action of the petitioner-College in shifting the College from Lambadipet to Satyanarayanapuram and to Krishna-Lanka by contending that as per the permission letter dated 30-10-1989, in the annexure it is shown that the peritioner-Society was permitted to establish a junior College in Vijayawada urban area. This argument was advanced by taking assistance from the language employed in the first paragraph of the proceedings which 1 have already stated supra. From a look at the provisions of me Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, it is made absolutely clear that any educational institution has to be established with reference to the need in that local area under Sections 20 and 21 of the said Act. Under Section 20 of the Act, the competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local news papers calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions. To the misfortune of the people of this Country the authorities concerned have forgotten their duty and allowed the private agencies to make applications for establishment of the Colleges. In the application made by the petitioner, he categorically stated that he wants to establish a College in a backward area i.e., at Lambadipet and that the two Colleges which are functioning in Vijayawada I town area are not able to meet the educational needs of the students. But, now the Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that because the petitioner was permitted to establish a junior College in Vijayawada urban area, no prior permission is required for shifting the College from Lambadipet to Satyanarayanapuram and Krishna Lanka which arc far away from the place where the petitioner initially intended to establish the College. Hence, I cannot accept the contention of the petitioner's Counsel that the petitioner can establish the College throughout the length and breadth of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation which is having about 50 Km. radius and a population of nearly ten lakhs.
6. The conduct of the petitioner can be looked into from another angle also. In the representation made by the petitioner for shifting the College from urban area to mofussil area, he started saying that many number of junior Colleges are functioning in the urban area and lie is not able to cope up with the competition in the urban area and, therefore, he wanted to shift to mofussil area. Knowing fully well that so many Colleges are functioning in the urban area i.e., in the specified locality, the petitioner opted to establish the College at Lambadipet by saying that it is a backward area and now he cannot be permitted to shift the College to Satyanarayanapuram which is in the heart of Vijayawada City as well as Krishna Lanka where number of Colleges are functioning. Accordingly, the first contention of the petitioner is rejected.
7. The other contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was issued under Rule 14(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 (G.O. Ms. No.29, dated 5-2-1987), whereas the petitioner College is governed by the Rules issued in G.O. Ms. No.251, dated 27-6-1988 i.e., A.P. Sahakara Junior Kalasalala (Registration, Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules, 1988.
8. It is true that the bureaucracy in its confusion without knowing the purport and purpose of the rules that are brought into existence issued separate rules for the Colleges other than the Colleges started in the Co-operative sector and the Colleges that are established in the Co-operative sector. While the rules relating to the establishment of Junior Colleges in general are crystal clear, the rules relating to Cooperative Junior Colleges are ambiguous and gave scope for this litigation. Really I do not find any need to issue these two sets of rules overlapping each other without serving any purpose except creating confusion. As the petitioner-College was established in the Cooperative sector, I would like to examine the case of the petitioner from the rules that govern this class of institutions. It is true that under Rule 8 of Sahakara Kalasalala Rules, the A.P. State Counsel of Higher Education is designated as the competent authority for granting or withdrawing permission for the Colleges intended to be established in the Co-operative sector basing on the recommendation of the notified authority and the registration authority. But the fact remains that, as stated above, after the permission is accorded by the State Council of Higher Education, the College has to necessarily obtain affiliation from the Board of Intermediate Education before starting the kalasala as per Clause 10 of the permission letter dated 30-10-1989, as the Board is the competent authority to conduct examinations for the students studying in junior Colleges and to publish the results. It is also not the case of the petitioner-College that it has not obtained affiliation from the Board of Intermediate Education after the permission was accorded by the Slate Council of Higher Education. Under Rule 11 of the Sahakara Kalasalala Rules, the Secretary of the Board of intermediate Education is the competent authority for granting or withdrawing recognition/affiliation to the sahakara junior kalasalas. From this it is seen that once the recognition is accorded by the State Council of Higher Education, the power of renewing or withdrawing the recognition/affiliation is specifically conferred on the Secretary of Board of Intermediate Education. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner's Counsel that Government alone is competent to withdraw the recognition. But, at the same time, I have to admit that some confusion was created while drafting the Rules 8 and 11 of Sahakara Kalasalala Rules. Under Rule 22(1) of these Rules, no educational society can establish a sahakara junior kalasala without obtaining prior permission from the Government and it has to be recognised and affiliated to the Board of Intermediate Education. Further, a kalasala which has been permitted to be established in a Mandal cannot be permitted to be shifted to any other Mandal, however, it can be permitted to be shifted to any other locality within, the Mandal with the prior permission of the Government provided a resolution is passed by two thirds majority of the members of the general body. Under Rule 22(2)(b), the Sahakara Junior Kalasala which has been permitted to be established in a mandal can be permitted to be shifted to urban areas with the prior permission of the Government and to rural areas with the prior permission of the Director of Intermediate Education, provided a resolution to that effect is passed by two-thirds majority of the members of the General Body. From this it is seen that if the petitioner-Society wants to shift the College to rural areas, it is the Director of Intermediate Education who has to accord permission. Admittedly, the petitioner-Society now wants to shift the College from urban area to rural area and hence the Director of Intermediate Fducation has to accord permission for such a shifting of the College. At any rate, under Rule i t of the Sahakara Kalasalala Rules read with Clause 10 of the permission letter issued in favour of the petitioner, unless the society has affiliation from the Board of Intermediate Education, it cannot function. The authority which has granted affiliation to run the educational institution is empowered to withdraw the same when the concerned institution fails to comply with the conditions of affiliation. In fact, the rules governing the general educational institutions are very crystal clear and the moment the institution is shifted without prior permission of the Board/Government, it is deemed that the recognition stands revoked automatically without any further orders. But the rule making authority without applying its mind framed the rules so vaguely as far as Sahakara junior Kalasalas are concerned and in fact there is no such need for framing separate rules as the rules governing the permission, recognition and affiliation cannot change or vary from institution to institution whether the College is established by a Sociery or in the Co-operative sector. By framing these inconsistent rules the authorities have given a handle to the unscrupulous persons to flout the law relating to establishment, recognition, administration and control of the institutions. In my considered opinion, the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education is well within his competence to withdraw the affiliation to the petitioner-College as it went on shifting the College from place to place without obtaining prior permission of the authorities concerned. I need not go into the other allegations that came to light from the report of the Regional Inspection Officer of the Board of Intermediate Education who has gone to the extent of saying that some benami admissions are taking place in the name of these colleges.
9. The other contention raised by the petitioner's Counsel is that without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Sahakara Junior Kalasala Rules, the impugned order is passed. Absolutely, there is no merit in this contention as the petitioner was given a show-cause notice on 27-6-1998 and his explanation was called for. In fact, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 7-9-1998 and after considering the same only the impugned order was passed. Further, it is interesting to see that while a show-cause notice was issued - why action should not be taken for shifting the College from Lambadipet to Satyanarayanapuram and to Krishna Lanka, the petitioner shifted the College to Gannavaram even without waiting for formal orders from the Board after making an application to that effect. This shows the scant respect the petitioner is having to the laws governing the establishment of educational institutions. It is also very interesting to note that one Sri Venkateswara Junior College, Gannavaram filed WP MP No.15421 of 1999 seeking permission of the Court to get itself impleaded in this writ petition. As per the version of this College, there are already three Colleges in Gannavaram mandal including his College and if the petitioner-College is also permitted to be shifted to Gannavaram mandal, there will be unhealthy competition among these Colleges and it is highly difficult for them to survive. I find sufficient justification in the apprehension of the proposed respondent (who is now permitted to be impleaded) and on this ground also the petitioner-College cannot be permitted to be shifted to Gannavaram. Further, from the records it is seen that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in exercise of the discretionary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.