Karnataka High Court
Bangalore City College vs Bangalore University on 31 October, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.43505 OF 2013 (EDN-RES)
Between:
Bangalore City College
No.160, Chalkere Main Road
Kalyannagar Post
Bangalore - 560 043
Rep by its Chairman ... Petitioner
(By Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, Adv. for M/s. Lex Nexus, Advs.)
And:
Bangalore University
Jnanabharathi Campus
Bangalore - 560 076
Rep by its Registrar ... Respondent
(By Sri.N.K.Ramesh, Adv.)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing Annexure-F the resolution of Syndicate of
respondents dated 24.8.2013, so far as the petitioner is concerned
and pass such other orders and etc.
2
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition coming on for preliminary hearing, is considered for final disposal given the circumstances of the case.
3. The petitioner is said to be managed by an educational trust. It has several Institutions under its wing and it is affiliated to the Bangalore University since the year 2000-01 in respect of various courses. The petitioner had applied for fresh affiliation for the following courses for the academic year 2009-10:
B.Sc. (Electronics) B.A. (Political Science) B.A. (Economics) M.Sc. (Communications)
4. It is stated that a fresh affiliation was granted in the said academic year 2009-10 with a permitted intake. In so far as B.Sc. (Electronics) is concerned, admissions had been made regularly and 3 students who were admitted to the academic year 2012-13 were permitted to take up their examinations and results have also been declared. In so far as B.A. (Political Science) and B.A. (Economics) also, the situation was the same and results have been declared. But, in so far as M.Sc.Computer Science is concerned, results are yet to be declared of the students who were admitted to the academic year 2012-13.
5. The petitioner made an application for renewal of affiliation for the academic year 2013-14 and there was notice of demand dated 24.4.2013 for payment of `.1.5 lakhs per year and the amount is said to have been paid in terms of Annexure-A to the writ petition. In consideration of the application for renewal of affiliation for the aforesaid courses for the academic year 2013-14, a Legal Inquiry Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'LIC', for short) had been constituted by the University. The LIC conducted inspection and by its report dated 17.5.2013, had recommended for renewal of affiliation for the academic year 2013-14. The petitioner had commenced process of admissions for the said 4 academic year. The report of the LIC as well as the Academic Council was placed before the Syndicate at its meeting dated 4.6.2013 and the Syndicate resolved to approve the recommendation in relation to the petitioner - Institution and therefore, for all purposes, the renewal of affiliation had been granted to the petitioner - Institution for the said academic year. It is the petitioner's case that in view of the completed process, there could be no further steps contemplated to re-visit the renewal of affiliation. However, it is complained that the Registrar has appointed one more Committee and based on a second report submitted on 15.7.2013, the Syndicate, at its meeting dated 24.8.2013, has accepted the recommendation to the effect that the renewal of affiliation granted in favour of the petitioner be withdrawn and rejected. It is this which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
6. This Court, in the first instance, had granted interim order of stay of Annexure-F dated 24.8.2013, whereby the Academic Council has recommended the withdrawal of affiliation as per the 5 report obtained by the Syndicate which, according to the petitioner, was impermissible in law and therefore, to elaborate on the illegality, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the procedure prescribed for affiliation and renewal of the affiliation under Section 59 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) is a complete code in itself. In this regard, the learned counsel would also place reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of 'Pragathi College of Education v. The State of Karnataka & others' in WP Nos.33518 & 33624/2013 and connected matters disposed of 16.9.2013. The learned counsel would take this Court through the language of Section 59 of the Act and the procedure contemplated therein, which the learned counsel would point out has not been followed by the University, in purportedly seeking to withdraw the renewal of affiliation that was granted for the academic year 2013-14 and that once the grant of affiliation is contemplated under Section 59 of the Act, the only manner in which the affiliation could be withdrawn is by recourse to the procedure contemplated under Section 63 of the Act, which has not been followed in the present 6 case and it is this which is emphasized by the learned counsel in contending that the admission process having been commenced, the respondent seeking to short circuit the procedure and by a summary manner, withdrawing the affiliation without recourse to the procedure in law is patently illegal and requires to be set at naught.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed his statement of objections, to contend that there is an incomplete statement of the sequence of events. It is pointed out that the Institution was conducting several courses after obtaining affiliation by the respondent. The University had accorded renewal of affiliation for the academic year 2013-14 to such of those existing courses conducted by the petitioner - Institution during the academic year 2012-13. It is pointed out that as far as the courses in M.Sc. (Communications), B.Sc. (Electronics), B.A. (Political Science) and B.A. (Economics), the petitioner had applied for grant of fresh affiliation for the academic session 2009-10, but, by the time the application could be processed, which culminated in the issue of notification dated 24.6.2010, the academic session for the 7 year 2010-11 had commenced. Even before issuance of the notification by the respondent, the petitioner had admitted the students to the above courses. Thereupon, the LIC was deputed for considering the renewal of affiliation for the academic year 2011-
12. The Academic Council, in its meeting dated 3.5.2011, had recommended for withholding the renewal of affiliation. Based on the report of the LIC, the Academic Council, in the interest of the students already admitted by the petitioner, recommended to grant renewal of affiliation only up to 2012-13 and further recommended not to admit students for the academic year 2013-14. The Syndicate which considered the overall performance of the petitioner, which was conducting some courses without obtaining affiliation, by its resolution dated 14.5.2013, resolved to renew the affiliation in respect of the above subjects only up to the academic year 2012-13 and for which the petitioner had already made admission of students. It is this aspect of the matter which is sought to be highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondent and would submit that in so far as the infirmity sought to be pointed out that pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate dated 14.5.2013, 8 there was indeed a renewal of affiliation subsequently, it is only in respect of those subjects which were already permitted and not for the subjects referred to hereinabove, for which the petitioner was enabled to secure affiliation by default as it were, which the Syndicate had permitted only in the interest of the students and it is this which is restricted up to 2012-13 and there was never an intention to renew the affiliation beyond the said period.
8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would yet insist that there is no such procedure whereby there could be an adhoc affiliation which could be summarily withdrawn or restricted to a particular period subject to cancellation. If once there is admittedly an affiliation or renewal of affiliation, the only manner known to law, by which such affiliation is withdrawn, is by recourse to Section 63 of the Act and therefore, would insist that the Rule of law would require the University to disclose as to the provisions of law under which such affiliation could be renewed and summarily withdrawn, without recourse to Section 63 of the Act.
9
9. Given the above circumstances, it cannot be denied that on a strict application of the Law, the University is hard put to explain its conduct in conferring the affiliation and having renewed the affiliation up to the academic year 2012-13. The only saving grace is that it has been done, according to the University, in the interest of the students. However, it cannot be said that it is open for the University to act at its whim and fancy. Notwithstanding it's lofty concern for the interest of the students, the University is bound to adhere to the procedure prescribed in law. Therefore, the affiliation and the renewal of affiliation which was conferred on the petitioner, shall be withdrawn after following due procedure of law. This, however, shall be to ensure that the University would follow the procedure prescribed in law, even though it remains a formality as on date, and it is hence necessary to set aside the orders by which the affiliation is summarily withdrawn by the Syndicate without recourse to Section 63 of the Act. At the same time, this shall not enable the petitioner, by virtue of the interim order granted earlier, to admit students for the academic year 2013-14 in respect of the 10 aforesaid subjects namely, M.Sc. (Communications), B.Sc. (Electronics), B.A. (Political Science) and B.A. (Economics). It is made clear that the intention of the University appears to be that there is no impediment for the petitioner to admit students for the academic year 2013-14 in respect of those subjects where there was affiliation in the first instance, prior to the aberration referred to hereinabove.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 24.8.2013 at Annexure-F is quashed. The respondent shall comply with the procedure in withdrawing the affiliation granted in respect of the subjects which were not contemplated in the first instance.
In so far as M.Sc. (Computer Science) subject is concerned, there is a heated dispute as to whether or not there was affiliation in the first instance, in favour of the petitioner. But, since the respondent shall now follow the procedure in withdrawing the affiliation, it is open for the respondent to include this subject in accordance with law. It is open for the respondent to refute the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would insist 11 that there are already admissions made to this course as there was no such dispute as claimed by the respondent till the filing of pleadings in this petition and that the interest of the students shall therefore be safeguarded even if any extreme steps is to be taken by the respondent, pursuant to this order, for the academic year 2013-
14. Accordingly, it is for the University to take this aspect of the matter into consideration at the appropriate time.
Sd/-
JUDGE RV