Chattisgarh High Court
Harbhajan Singh And Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 12 April, 2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
W P C No 7122 of 2011 & W P C No 7125 of 2011 & W P C No 7549 of 2011 & W P C No 7550 of 2011
Central Institute of Technology
Mohd Sartaj Ahamed and others
Avinash Dey and others
Harbhajan Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh and others
...Respondents
! Mr Prateek Sharma & Ms Sunita Jain counsel for the Petitioner Mr Y C Sharma Mr Vivek Rathore and Mr Shankalp Kochar & Mr
^ Shri V V S Murthy Deputy Advocate General for the respondents Mr Rakesh Shroti and Mr Anumeh Shrivastava counsel for
CORAM: HONBLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA J
Dated: 12/04/2012
: Judgement
ORDER
(12.04.2012) WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. In W.P(C).Nos.7122, 7125 7549 & 7550 of 2011 challenge has been made to the impugned communication/order dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) whereby the respondent Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University (hereinafter referred to as `the University') has decided to detain the III Semester Mining and Civil Engineering Students of the Petitioner Institution from taking III Semester examination in the month of December-January 2011-12 with immediate effect. W.P(C) No.7122/2011 has been preferred by the institution whereas the other three writ petitions have been preferred by the students of third semester/fourth semester of Mining and Civil Engineering branch of the institution. Since identical question of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. It is common ground that a student taking third semester examination if for any reason has not been able to take up the examination; he is entitled to appear in both the third semester as well as fourth semester examination and the said examination is to commence from 21st of April 2012 as was informed by learned counsel for the University during the course of hearing on 21.3.2012.
3. The impugned communication of detainment addressed to the Principal, Central Institute of Technology, Raipur, reads thus :
"With reference to above, the University has found deficiencies of serious nature with respect to the laboratory facilities and faculty in the instate, especially in Civil andMining Engineering disciplines. The deficiencies are as below:
1. As per your letter dated 11.11.2011, you have admitted that the two faculties in mining department viz.
Mr. Geet Chaturvedani and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh, who are not eligible to be appointed as faculty members as per AICTE norms, but they have been teaching in your institute and have covered 75% of the syllabus, which is in complete violation of AICTE norms.
2. The other two faculties in mining department viz. Mr. Rajnikant and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh mentioned by you as your faculties is totally wrong and false information because Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh is working as part-time lecturer in Government Engineering College, Bilaspur since 14th October 2003 till date. This has been certified by the Principal GEC, Bilaspur and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh has also confirmed this in his letter to the University. He has specifically mentioned that he never served the Central Institute of Technology in any capacity. Secondly, Mr. Rajni Kant never joined your institute as he told to the University authorities on phone.
3. The fifth faculty shown as HOD of Mining Engineering, viz. Ms. Alka Mishra having basic qualification of M.Tech., Geology, does not fulfil the requirement to be considered as faculty in Mining Engineering as per AICTE norms.
In the light of the above mentioned facts, it is very much clear that you do not have any faculty in Mining Engineering since the start of the academic session.
4. In the Civil Engineering you have appointed only one faculty on 11.10.2011 which is also a total violation of AICTE norms and University ordinance no.14. Looking into the above deficiencies not being complied by the institution till date, the University has decided to detain III Semester Mining and Civil Engineering Students from taking III semester examination in month of December January 2011-12 with immediate effect."
Sd/- ( Dr. A. K. Dubey) Registrar
4. The petitioner Institution is established and run by a Society in the name of Manav Rachna Education Society. The institution conducts engineering course in several disciplines namely Computer Science and Engineering, Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Electrical and Telecommunication Engineering and Mechanical Engineering for which approval was granted in June 2009 with an intact capacity of 60 students for each of the discipline. By Communication dated 30th June, 2010 while granting affiliation for the above mentioned engineering courses, the Directorate of Technical Education, Chhattisgarh has informed the Principal of the petitioner institution granting permission to open the courses with a condition that for affiliation from the respondent University, an inspection Committee/Team shall inspect the institution in which one of the representative of the Directorate of Technical University shall be mandatorily included. By communication (Annexure P-
4) issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (for brevity "AICTE"), on 23rd August, 2010 the said Apex Regulatory/Statutory Body under Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, granted approval for commencement of Mining and Civil Engineering branch amongst others from academic year 2010-2011. The Directorate of Technical Education, Government of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as `Directorate') also issued "No Objection Certificate" on 26.8.2010 for the above mentioned new courses with similar condition that the inspection team shall mandatorily include one representative of the Directorate. It appears that list of teachers appointed by the petitioner institution was sent for approval to the University who duly approved the same on 20.9.2010 (Annexure P-5) with certain conditions for lecturers in the subjects of Engineering and Technical as also Humanities and Science.
5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner institution deposited fee for affiliation for the academic Session 2011-2012 in the month of December, 2010 and nothing significant appears to have taken place between December 2010 and September 2011 when the University issued a communication on 06.9.2011 informing the institution that the faculties available in Mining discipline is not as per the AICTE norms, therefore, the University intends to deaffiliate the said course for the academic session 2011-2012 and will put restriction on admitted students in the academic session 2010-2011 for the third semester. The institution was provided two options i.e., either to appoint faculty with an undertaking that they will not be relieved unless the replacement of faculty is available or, if option no.1 is not feasible, students of mining discipline be transferred to some other discipline against the vacant seats as per their choice. According to the petitioner institution, appointments were made and undertakings were sent to the University informing the appointments of Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh and Mr. Rajnikant in the mining faculty. The respondent University proposed inspection on 17.9.2011 to which a request was made on 16.9.2011 by the institution informing the University that because of Vishwakarma Pooja, resignation of Principal, death of one member of the family in the house of Secretary of the institution, the inspection may be postponed. However, as per the institution, the inspection was carried on and thereafter a letter was issued on 23.09.2011 (Annexure P-10) pointing out the deficiency and noticing as to why the process of deaffiliation be not initiated against the college. The following deficiencies were pointed out in the show cause notice :
"During inspection of your college by the inspecting team several deficiencies were detected. In addition to several other deficiencies the few important deficiencies are enumerated below:
1. Your college does not have any faculty in the Mining Engineering.
2. The Civil Engineering Faculty with ID-1-4624260036 does not have Engineering Qualification and the inspecting team found that the said faculty possesses MA, MSc, B.ED, which have no relevance to Civil Engineering.
The story is similar in respect of Mechanical Engineering with faculty possessing MA, BA and M Phil, PGDCA and several others with no relevance to Mechanical Engineering.
3. Mathematics, Physics and Engilish Departments have no faculty at all.
4. The principal and other faculties have not been appointed as per Statute-19 of the University.
5. The Student-teacher ratio is not maintained as per AICTE norms.
6. The laboratories are not in accordance with the University norms.
You are therefore called upon to show cause within seven days of the receipt of this notice as to why the process of disaffiliation be not started against your college for the academic year 2011-12, failing which the matter will be decided according to law."
Sd/- (Dr. A. K.Dubey)
6. The institution vide its communication dated 02.11.2011 replied that they have faculties in the Mining Department and faculties in other departments like Civil Engineering, Maths, Physics, Chemistry are available and the student-teacher ratio is also optimum and the laboratory is equipped as per the minimum requirement of equipments as per the list of University syllabus. The University appears to have issued another communication specifically mentioning the deficiencies in the Mining Branch vide Annexure P-11, dated 02.11.2011 which was replied by the Institution on 04.11.2011 along-with the list of faculties and joining report of faculties in 26 sheets. The University issued a counter communication on 05.11.2011 mentioning that two faculties in the mining discipline namely Sandeep Kumar Singh and Geet Chaturvedani who got second division in B.E. (Mining) and only one faculty Mr. Dayanand Sharma are working in Civil Engineering, further pointing out that as per the AICTE faculty norms, a candidate possessing minimum first division in B.E.,/B.Tech., in relevant discipline can be appointed as pro-term lecturer. The college again issued a communication dated 10.11.2011 mentioning that both the above said lecturers have already completed 75% of the syllabus, yet the institution has further revamped the compliance adhering to AICTE norms to induct two more faculties in the mining discipline namely Mr. Akhilesh Chaudhary, M.Tech., first division as Lecturer and Mr. Yash Khare, B.E. first Division as Proterm Lecturer apart from the existing faculty namely Miss. Alka Mishra, M.Tech., (Applied Geology, first division). This was done to ensure compliance of student-teacher ratio of 15:1. When the petitioner institution submitted examination forms along-with required fee to the University, the forms of third semester Mining and Civil Branch students were returned for which endorsement is available on the covering letter.
7. In the above back ground of events, learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the University has no jurisdiction to detain students from appearing in the examination; Ordinance 14 Clauses 5 & 7 of the University Ordinance is related to duration of a semester and not regarding shortage/ deficiencies in faculties; the University has usurped the jurisdiction and authority of AICTE by detaining all the students which has the effect of canceling approval of the said branches in Mining and Civil Engineering; transfer of students from one institution to another without canceling affiliation and/or forcing the students to change the branch is without jurisdiction and that too without permission of AICTE. It has been argued that the impugned action is malafide and otherwise also if the courses/syllabus covered by the students in petitioner institution cannot be approved then little time was left for them to achieve the required attendance in the remaining time, therefore, the action of the University is self- contradictory. They have further argued that in the meantime, AICTE has again issued the letter of approval after inspection on 05.3.2012 and further that in all the communications/notices, the alleged nature of deficiencies; action proposed against the petitioner institution, the discipline etc. keep on changing which is demonstrative of arbitrary exercise of power.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6/University would submit that the University is within its authority and jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in view of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Act, 2004 and the order has been passed on the ground that the petitioner institution does not have competent faculties in accordance with AICTE norms. He would submit that AICTE, the University and the Government operate in different spheres and the University has not trenched upon the function of AICTE while passing the impugned order and lastly that in academic matters the Court should normally be slow in making interference with the opinion expressed by the experts.
9. This Court shall first consider the issue concerning competence of the University vis a vis powers of AICTE in as much as according to the petitioner the impugned order has the effect of partial deaffiliation or withdrawal of approval granted by AICTE.
In the matter of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State & another (2000) 5 SCC 231, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held thus in paragraphs 22, 27 & 28 :
"22. As held in T.N. case the Central Act of 1987 and in particular, Section 10(k) occupied the field relating to "grant of approvals" for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the Central Act alone were to be complied with. So far as the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act or its statutes were concerned and in particular Statute 9(7), they merely required the University to obtain the "views" of the State Government. That could not be characterized as requiring the "approval" of the State Government. If, indeed, the University statute could be so interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the State Government would be repugnant to the provisions of Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would again be void. As pointed out in T.N. case, there were enough provisions in the Central Act for consultation by the Council of AICTE with various agencies, including the State Governments and the universities concerned. The State-Level Committee and the Central Regional Committees contained various experts and State representatives. In case of difference of opinion as between the various consultees, AICTE would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the State Governments and the universities. No doubt the question of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered by the Central Act but in T.N. case it was held that the University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or the conditions imposed by AICTE. Therefore, the procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions which could be imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. The University could not, therefore, in any event have sought for "approval" of the State Government.
27. The so-called "policy" of the State as mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court was not a ground for refusing approval. In Thirumuruga Kirupananda & Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of T.N. which was a case relating to medical education and which also related to the effect of a Central law upon a law made by the State under Entry 25 List III, it was held (at SCC p.35, para 34) that the "essentiality certificate cannot be withheld by the State Government on any policy consideration because the Policy in the matter of establishment of a new medical college now rests with the Central Government alone."
(emphasis supplied) Therefore, the State could not have any "policy" outside the AICTE Act and indeed if it had a policy, it should have placed the same before AICTE and that too before the latter granted permission. Once that procedure laid down in the AICTE Act and Regulations had been followed under Regulation 8(4), and the Central Task Force had also given its favourable recommendations, there was no scope for any further objection or approval by the State. We may however add that if thereafter, any fresh facts came to light after an approval was granted by AICTE or if the State felt that some conditions attached to the permission and required by AICTE to be complied with, were not complied with, then the State Government could always write to AICTE to enable the latter to take appropriate action.
Decision of University in not granting further or final affiliation wrong on merits.
28. Admittedly, the University's inspection report was in favour of the appellant. This is clear from the appellant's letter dated 31.05.1995 to the State Government. The only requirement as per Statute 9(7) was for the University to obtain the "views" of the State Government. Obtaining the "views" of the State Government, as already stated, did not amount to obtaining its "approval". Procedure and conditions for affiliation could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act, in particular Section 10(k) of the Regulation, and the University could not seek approval of the Government. The University was also one of the agencies consulted by the council of AICTE under Regulation 8. Once that was over, and approval was granted by AICTE, if there was any default on the part of the College in compliance with the conditions of approval, the only remedy for the University was to bring those facts to the notice of AICTE so that the latter could take appropriate action."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 SCC 1 the following has been laid down in paragraphs 62 & 63.
"62. From the above decisions, in our judgment, the law appears to be very well settled. So far as coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research, scientific and technical institutions are concerned, the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of List 1 of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the State has no power to encroach upon the legislative power of Parliament. It is only when the subject is covered by Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution that there is a concurrent power of Parliament as well as the State Legislatures and appropriate Act can be made by the State Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions under the Constitution.
63. In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble of the Act provides for establishment of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher-education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and for matters connected therewith. With a view to achieving that object, the National Council for Teacher Education has been established at four places by the Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to the State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on "Policy Consideration".
Thus in the matters of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra) and Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra) it has been held that so far as it relates to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research, scientific and technical institutions, the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the State has no power to encroach upon the legislative power of Parliament. Similarly, it has been held therein (in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust) that once the approval was granted by the AICTE if there was any default on the part of college in compliance with the conditions of approval, the only remedy for the University was to bring those facts to the notice of AICTE so that the latter could take appropriate action.
11. However, in the case in hand, even though the norms for appointment of faculty have been laid down by the AICTE, on the ground of its alleged violation, the University has taken an action contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust and has passed an order referring to Clause 5.0 and 7.0 of Ordinance No.14 of the University. The said exercise of power and consequent detainment of students has the effect of partial/temporary suspension of approval by AICTE in as much as the students of petitioner institution in the discipline of Mining and Civil Engineering have been debarred for appearing in the examination of third semester enmasse. If the University was in any manner not satisfied with the competence or eligibility of the faculties in those two disciplines, the only remedy for the University was to bring those facts to the notice of AICTE as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Para 28 of the Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra).
12. The second issue is about availability and exercise of jurisdiction to pass an order of the nature Annexure P-1 against the institution which is otherwise adverse to the students.
13. The University has referred to Clauses 5.0 & 7.0 of Ordinance No.14 as the source of power apart from quoting violation of AICTE norms which has already been dealt with by this Court in the preceding paragraph of this Judgment. Clauses 5.0 & 7.0 as also Clause 3.4.1 (c) of Ordinance No.14 is reproduced hereunder:
3.4.1(c) "A candidate getting detained due to shortage of attendance or failing in sessional in a particular semester will have to repeat the same semester which shall commence after about a year as a regular candidate. However, he/she can take admission in the next higher semester. Thereafter, the candidate will be subjected to change of group i.e. from A-B to B-A or vice verse as mentioned in Para 3.4.1(a) & (b)."
5.0 " Duration of a Semester 5.1 There shall be normally fourteen weeks of teaching in every semester.
5.2 A candidate may provisionally continue his/ her studies in higher semester class after the examinations of the semester he/she appeared is over. However, his/her eligibility shall be evaluated only after the results of semesters as per clause 3.5 are declared at which he/she had appeared."
7.0 "ATTENDANCE 7.1 Candidates appearing as regular students for any semester examination are required to attend 85 percent of the lectures delivered and of the practical classes held separately in each subject of the course of study, provided that a short fall in attendance upto 10% and a further 5% can be condoned by the Principal of the College and Vice Chancellor of the University respectively for satisfactory reasons."
On a reading of the above quoted clauses of Ordinance No.14, it would appear that one semester is of 14 weeks and a candidate is required to attend 85% of the lectures delivered provided that a short fall in attendance upto 10% and a further 5% can be condoned by the Principal of the College and the Vice Chancellor of the University respectively for satisfactory reasons. It is also clear that a candidate getting detained due to shortage of attendance or failing in sessional in a particular semester will have to repeat the same semester which shall commence after about a year as a regular student. However, he/she can take admission in the next higher semester.
14. Admittedly, and it is the case of respondent-
University also that because of deficiencies/default by the institution the detainment of students of third semester of mining and Civil Engineering from taking third semester examination has been directed without there being any satisfaction that the students have not secured minimum attendance as provided in Clause 7.0. If according to the University, faculties appointed by the Institution were not eligible, it could have written to the AICTE for canceling the approval. However, the University has resorted to provisions in Ordinance No.14 which operates against a defaulting student and thus for no-fault of the students, they have been detained from taking of the examination only on the ground that teachers of Mining and Civil Engineering discipline are not qualified. It is surprising to note that as to how the students who attended the lectures can be punished if their teachers have not secured first division in B.E.,/B.Tech., examination or is otherwise not qualified under the norms of AICTE. Such a proposition would deprive the prospects of hundreds of students in several institutions in appearing in the examination in engineering colleges. In fact, the steps taken by the University do not stop here in as much as the students have been sent to some other college for taking of the examination and they have been allowed to change their branch from Mining to Civil Engineering. No power or authority has been demonstrated as to how a student who has taken admission in a particular discipline/branch can be forced to change his discipline in the garb of exercise of power under Clause 5.0 and 7.0 of Ordinance No.14 of the University.
15. Moreover, under clause 3.4.1(c), a candidate getting detained due to shortage of attendance will have to repeat the same semester which shall commence after about a year, as a regular candidate, whereas, in the present case, no such direction or order has been issued by the University, therefore, in view of this clause No.3.4.1(c), the impugned order is not for the purpose of detaining the students but for some other purpose i.e., partial withdrawal of approval/affiliation and thus it amounts to colourable and malafide exercise of power. The impugned order thus suffers from absolute arbitraryness and the purported demonstration of source of power is also not available in the given set of facts.
16. There is yet another aspect of the matter which is borne out from the record. On 6.9.2011, the communication issued by the University mentioned about the faculties available in Mining discipline and two options were given to the institution as mentioned in Paragraph 4 of this judgment. The inspection conducted by the University on 17.9.2011 did not comprise of a representative of the State Government which is mandatory as per the NOC issued on 26.8.2010. Vide communication issued on 23.9.2011 (Annexure P-10) notice was issued to the institution as to why the process of deaffiliation be not initiated against the college, after mentioning deficiencies in faculties in several disciplines, non-maintenance of student-teacher ratio, laboratory not being equipped in conformity with the University norms etc. However, after submission of reply, the University again reverted back to deficiencies in Mining Branch in its communication dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-11) and after receipt of reply another communication was issued on 05.11.2011 again mainly concerning Mining Branch with only reference to Mr. Dayanand Sharma of Civil Engineering. Subsequent communication issued by the institution on 11.11.2011 (Page 58 of the paper book) has not been mentioned in the impugned order. Thus the University appears to be determined to take action against the institution. However, in the notice earlier issued on 6.9.2011 (at Page 37 of the paper book) the institution was informed about the intended disaffiliation of the said course of Mining discipline without mentioning anything about the Civil discipline. Thus from the documents available on record, it would appear that no notice was ever issued to the institution or to the students about the intended action for detaining the students or for changing the branch. The only notice for intended action issued on 06.09.2011 is for deaffiliation of mining discipline without mentioning anything about the civil discipline.
17. In the matter of Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (1978) 3 SCC 36, it has been held thus in paragraph 17 of the judgment.
"17. The majority judgment of the Kerala High Court, inasmuch as it holds that a person is not entitled to a hearing, before he is blacklisted, must be deemed to have been overruled by the decision of this Court in Erusian Equipments (ibid) where it was held that (SCC p.75, para 20) :
Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the black-list.
Controversy in the instant case, therefore, narrows down into the issue, whether such an opportunity was given to the appellant. Answer to this question will turn on an interpretation of the notice, dated April 17, 1968 (Ex.P-8) given by the Executive Engineer to the appellant. This notice has been extracted in a foregoing part of this judgment. The material sentence therein is :
You are therefore requested to show cause . . . why the work may not be arranged otherwise at your risk and loss, through other agencies after debarring you as a defaulter . . . .
The crucial words are those that have been underlined.* They take their colour from the context. Construed along with the links of the sentence which precede and succeed them, the words "debarring you as a defaulter", could be understood as conveying no more than that an action with reference to the contract in question, only, was under contemplation. There are no words in the notice which could give a clear intimation to the addressee that it was proposed to debar him from taking any contract, whatever, in future under the Department. A perusal of the appellant's reply (Ex.P-7), dated May 20, 1968, sent to the Executive Engineer, also appears to show that by the word "debarring" mentioned in the Executive Engineer's letter dated April 17, 1968 (Ex.P-
6), he understood as debarring him from executing the contract in question after declaring him as a defaulter, and then getting the same work done by other agencies, at his risk and loss. All that has been said in Ex.P-
7 by the appellant is directed to justify that the non-execution of the contract was not due to his fault, but due to the delay on the part of the Department in handing over the building to him for starting the work within the time specified in the agreement, and consequently, if any loss would be incurred by the Department in getting the work done through any other agency, he would not be liable to make good the same. In short, the letter (Ex.P-6) dated April 17, 1968 from the Executive Engineer, did not give any clear notice to the appellant that action to debar him from taking in future any contract, whatever, under the Department or its Ernakulam Division was in contemplation. The appellant was thus not afforded adequate opportunity to represent against the impugned action."
* Herein italics (Emphasis supplied) The above judgment of Joseph Vilangandan (supra) has been relied in Southern Painters v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travenkur Limited and another 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 699. In both the cases, it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the notice issued to the aggrieved party, was not clear in as much as the notice was issued vaguely without intimating about the action proposed to be taken and in the said facts of the case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that there is violation of principle of natural justice.
18. In the present case also, as observed in the preceding paragraphs, the notices were issued regarding proposed action on 06.09.2011 and 23.9.2011 wherein it was mentioned that the University intends to deaffiliate the Mining Discipline and will put restriction on admitted students. In the subsequent show cause notice dated 23.09.2011 Annexure P-10 also, the proposed action was about deaffiliation of the college for the academic year 2011-2012. Thus there is no specific notice for detainment of students concerning Civil Branch at any point of time and the notice concerning Mining Branch is also for the proposed/intended action of deaffiliation and restriction on students and not for passing an order with regard to detainment of the students and sending them to any other college and that too by changing their discipline/branch. Thus for want of specific and clear notice, there is violation of principles of natural justice while issuing the impugned order Annexure P-1. So far the students are concerned, there is absolutely no notice issued to any of them regarding the proposed action for their detainment. Clauses 5.0 and 7.0 of Ordinance No.14 of the University would enable the University to take action against the student and not against an institution and whenever any action detaining a student from appearing in the examination is taken, the concerned student is entitled for opportunity of hearing, which has not been provided by the University to any of the students, therefore, for this reason also, the impugned order passed against the interest of the students deserves to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order suffers from illegality and arbitrariness, it deserves to be and is hereby quashed. As has been informed by the learned counsel for the University, the examination is scheduled to be commenced from 21st of April, 2012. Therefore, it is directed that the examination forms to all the students belonging to the petitioner institution who are affected by the impugned order shall be issued and they shall be allowed to appear in the 3rd semester and/or 4th semester examination, as the case may be, from the petitioner institution and their results be declared in accordance with law. It is made clear that the University shall be at liberty to inform the AICTE about the eligibility/competence of the faculties appointed by the petitioner institution in Mining and Civil Engineering Branches in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court in para 28 of the judgment in the matter of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra) for a decision to be taken by the AICTE in this regard.
20. In W.P(C). No.7550/2011, petitioners Harbhajan Singh, Dinesh Kumar Jhangel, Abhishek Verma, Gyaneshwar Shridhar, Jyoti Lakda, Manju Xalxho, Navin Prakash, Piyush Das, Rupendra Verma, Vishal Tirkey, Khemlal Sahu, Rajesh Kumar Pahet, Vinita Kachchap, Bina Sao, Hemant Chauhan, Pankaj Kumar Gadatiya, Rupesh Kumar Baghel, Satwant Bandhe, Basant Lal Kujur, Indrajit, Shivkumar Verma, Gajendra Kumar Dansena, Nemichand Ratre, Pankaj Kumar Xalxho, Pramod Sahu, Narendra Kumar Ratre and Praveen Kumar have moved application for withdrawal of writ petition. Their prayer is allowed and the writ petition concerning these students is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the order allowing all the writ petitions including W.P(C). No.7550/2011 shall be operative in favour of all the remaining petitioners.
JUDGE