Allahabad High Court
Dr. Suresh Kumar Pandey (At: 02:00 P.M.) vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of ... on 1 March, 2013
Author: Devi Prasad Singh
Bench: Devi Prasad Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench Lucknow *********** [ A.F.R. ] Reserved On:- 27.02.2013 Delivered On:- 01.03.2013 Court No. - 27 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 729 of 2012 Petitioner :- Dr. Suresh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Higher Education &4 Ors Petitioner Counsel :- R.C. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manik Sinha,R.K. Srivastava Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
[Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh]
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the impugned order dated 6.2.2012, passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad whereby, ad hoc services of the petitioner in the Department of Commerce, has been modified with direction to engage the petitioner under self-financing scheme.
2. Kamta Prasad Sunder Lal Post Graduate College, Ayodhya Faizabad (in short the College), is an affiliated college to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad (in short the University), is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, governed by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the First Statute, 1978 of the University. The college was granted temporary recognition to run the degree classes of commerce subject from 1.7.1989. In consequence thereof, four posts of Lecturers were created on 1.11.1990. It appears that on 14.2.1991, to meet out the requirement, the Committee of Management of the College, appointed three persons as Lecturers on ad hoc basis without holding a selection through an advertisement and thereafter, on 30.5.1991, sent request to the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission for holding selection for four posts of Lecturers in Commerce.
The Committee of Management, sent the proposal for regularisation of two ad hoc Lecturers instead of three (supra) but the Director, Higher Education, vide his letter dated 23.6.1992, cancelled the ad hoc appointment being violative of Section 31 (c) of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
3. Under the aforesaid backdrop, an advertisement was published by the Committee of Management on 24.8.1991 inviting applications for the post of four Lecturers in Commerce on ad hoc basis. In response to it, the petitioner applied but he was not considered on the ground that ban was imposed by the State Government. Instead, three Lecturers selected on 14.2.1991, were permitted to continue in service.
4. Against the order dated 23.6.1992, passed by the Director Higher Education (supra), Writ Petition No.4095 (S/S) of 1995 was filed by two ad hoc Lecturers in which by an interim order, this Court permitted them to continue in service.
5. On 1.12.1995, permanent recognition was granted to the College from the Session 1995-96 to run the Commerce Department. To meet out the exigency of service, the petitioner was appointed as part time Lecturer (Commerce) with effect from 1.1.1995.
By the advertisement dated 15.9.1996, the College invited applications for appointment on the post of part time Lecturers in Commerce subject to payment of honorarium of Rs.1100/- per month. In response to it, the petitioner also applied being qualified for the post possessing degree of M. Com and Ph.D. The selection was held and the petitioner was appointed as part time Lecturer of Commerce and resumed duty on 01.11.1996. Along with the petitioner, one other person Sri Pram Narain Rastogi was selected and appointed though, he did not possess Ph. D. degree. On 20.7.1995, the College sent proposal for creation of 9 posts of Lecturer for the subject of Commerce. Petitioner's appointment and post was not sanctioned/approved. He was also not paid regular salary. Hence the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.82 (S/B) of 2002 claiming regular pay scale with the further prayer for regularisation on the post of Lecturer in Commerce. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner was restrained to perform duties by the Committee of Management. In consequence thereof, the petitioner moved an application for interim relief. This Court by an interim order dated 19.3.2002, directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on same terms and conditions under which he was working. Since the petitioner was not permitted to resume duty by the Committee of Management, this Court by an interim order dated 20.12.2005, passed in Writ Petition No.82 (S/B) of 2002, directed the petitioner to appear before the Registrar of the University on 22.12.2005 and commanded him to accept the joining report. In consequence thereof, the petitioner appeared and submitted joining report along with the interim order dated 20.12.2005 passed by this Court. The Registrar accepted the joining report of the petitioner and in turn, the petitioner also resumed duty in the College but according to petitioner's counsel, he was not permitted to sign the attendance Register. The Writ Petition No.82 (S/B) of 2002 was finally disposed of on 16.12.2009 providing that the petitioner shall be paid the honorarium as enhanced by the State Government. But it was made open that in case there is no need, the services may be dispensed with by the College.
In consequence thereof, keeping in view the report of the Head of Department Commerce dated 23.12.2009, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 4.1.2010.
6. Report of the Head of Department at the face of record, seems to be incorrect and based on unfounded facts, which seems to be under the influence of the Committee of Management. Against 714 sanctioned strength of students, the Committee of Management demanded 11 sanctioned posts and only 2 have been sanctioned by the Government. There appears to be no reason to record a finding that the Department does not require any teacher. Such action on the part of the Head of Department is not justified.
7. The petitioner filed objection to it before the Committee of Management on 7.1.2010. The Committee of Management in its meeting dated 6.1.2010, modified the order dated 4.1.2010 and 5.1.2010. The tenor of the order dated 4.1.2010 and 5.1.2010 (Annexure No.2 and 3 to the writ petition) reveal that respondents had terminated services of the petitioner as part time Lecturer in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.82 (S/B) of 2002. The judgment and order dated 16.12.2009 passed by this Court is reproduced as under:
"Court No. - 21Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 82 of 2002 Petitioner :- Dr.Mohd. Moin Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secy.
Petitioner Counsel :- R.C.Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Aseem Chandra,Manik Sinha,V.K. Yadav Hon'ble Prakash Chandra Verma,J.
Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Anoop Srivastava, learned counsel for the College.
The petitioners in the writ petition are the part time Lecturers and are being paid honorarium at the rate of Rs.2,800/- per month.
Grievance of the petitioners is that the Government vide its Order dated 06.01.2009 has increased the honorarium of the part time Lecturers up to Rs.8,000/- Thereafter it has been enhanced up to Rs.15,000/- by means of Government Order dated 28.02.2009 but despite the Government Orders, the petitioners are not being paid that honorarium.
Since the Government Order has been issued by enhancing the honorarium of the part time Lecturers, therefore, it is incumbent on the College to pay the honorarium to the part time Lecturers as per Government Order, if the Government Order is applicable on the private institutions also. However, it is open for the Management that if there is no need of these part time Lecturers, their services may be dispensed with and the College will not be entitled to engage part time Lecturers, if any of the part time Lecturers' services are dispensed with.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 16.12.2009"
8. At the face of record, this Court has not directed to dispense with services but an option was given to dispense with services in case services are not required. Needless to say that in case the College was in need of petitioner's service, they should have retained the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court dated 16.12.2009 and pay honorarium. Of course, being part time lecturer, services could have been dispensed with in case services rendered by the petitioner has been unsatisfactory. The judgment and order dated 16.12.2009 passed by this Court, does not command to terminate the services. It appears that feeling aggrieved with the respondents' action, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being Criminal Misc. Case No.757 (C) of 2010 in which a defence is taken by the respondents that no part time lecturer has been appointed after dispensing with the services of the petitioner.
9. Against the order of termination, the petitioner submitted representation dated 29.11.2010 before the Vice-Chancellor of the University and since no decision was taken, he filed Writ Petition No.342 (S/B) of 2011. The writ petition was decided by the Division Bench of this court on 24.2.2011 directing the Vice-Chancellor to decide the representation of the petitioner submitted against the order of termination. A copy of the judgment and order dated 24.2.2011 is on record as Annexure No.18 to the writ petition. In consequence thereof, the Vice-Chancellor of the University by the impugned order dated 6.2.2012, decided the representation and modified the terminated order to the extent that the petitioner shall be engaged within two weeks in Commerce Department under self-financing scheme. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the Vice-Chancellor, the present writ petition has been preferred.
10. During the course of hearing on 17.12.2012, Dr. V.N. Arora, Principal of the College informed that there are only two teachers to take classes of B. Com. course against 1556 students. Attention was been invited towards the letter dated 25.5.1998 sent by Director Higher Education which reveals that sanction has been granted by Government only for two teachers though the demand was for 11, keeping in view the sanction to admit 714 students in B.Com course. Accordingly, two regular teachers are imparting education. Keeping in view the statement made, it further appears that against sanctioned strength of 714 students, 1556 students have been admitted and pursuing B. Com. Course in the college. Meaning thereby, only two regular teachers are imparting education to 1556 students. The Principal set up defence before the Court that under pressure exerted by the students and their guardians, 1556 students have been granted admission and pursuing course in 2012-2013 session. On account of threat perception to life by certain anti-social elements, by the order dated 17.12.2012 of this Court, Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad was directed to provide appropriate security to Dr. V.N. Arora, Principal of the College in question. The Vice-chancellor was directed to submit a report with regard to sanctioned strength of teachers, students and number of students pursuing course in different academic classes of the colleges affiliated to University. One strange fact was brought on record by Sri Manik Sinha, learned counsel for the University that now every college of the University has been admitting students more than the sanctioned strength in violation of norms prescribed by the UGC with regard to ratio of teacher and students.
11. It is a sorry state of affairs in the State of U.P. Admission of students more than the sanctioned strength that too, in absence of teachers, makes mockery of system and only provides certificate without inculcating actual knowledge of the subjects.
12. Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act (in short Act), deals with the power of universities to regulate the admission in the university as well as affiliated or constituent colleges. For convenience section 28 of the Act is reproduced as under:-
"28. Admission Committee-(1) There shall be an Admissions Committee of the University, the constitution of which shall be such as may be provided for in the Ordinances.
(2) The Admissions Committee shall have the power to appoint such number of sub-Committee as it thinks fit.
(3) Subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council and to the provisions of sub-section (5), the Admissions Committee shall lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission not various courses of studies in the University and may also nominate a person or a sub-Committee as the admitting authority in respect of any course of study in a an Institute or a constituent college maintained by the University.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), the Committee may issue any direction as respects criteria or methods of admissions (including the number of students to be admitted) to constituent colleges maintained by the State Government and affiliated or associated colleges, and such directions shall be binding on such colleges.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act-
(a) reservation of seats of admission in any course of study in University, Institute, constituent college, affiliated college or associated college for the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens may be made and regulated by such orders as the State Government may, by notification, make in that behalf:
Provided that reservation under this clause shall not exceed fifty percent of the total number of seats in any course of study.
Provided further that reservation under this clause shall not apply in the case of an institution established and administered by minorities referred in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution.
Provided also that the reservation under this clause shall not apply the category of Other Backward Classes of citizen specified in Scheduled II to the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Others Backward Classes) Act, 1994-
(b) admission to the medical and engineering colleges and to course of instruction for degrees in education and Ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicine (including the number of students to be admitted) shall subject to clause (a), be regulated by such orders)which if necessary may be with retrospective effect, but not effective prior to January 1, 1979) as the State Government may by notification, make in that behalf.
Provided that no order regulating admission under this clause shall be inconsistent with the rights of minorities in the matter of establishing and administering educational institutions of their choice :
(c) in making an order under clause (a), the State Government may direct that any person who wilfully acts in a manner intended to contravene, or defeat the purposes of the order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or with the fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or with both, as may be specified in the order.
(5-A) Every order made under clause (a) of sub-section (5) shall be laid, as soon as may be, before both Houses of the State Legislature and the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 23-A of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 shall apply as they apply in respect of rules made by the State Government under any Uttar Pradesh Act.
(6) No student admitted to any college in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be permitted to take up any examination conducted by the University and the Vice Chancellor shall have the power to cancel any admission made in such contravention. "
13. A plain reading of Section 28 of the Act shows that admission to a University and its associate or constituent colleges is regulated by the committee constituted by the university in pursuance to power conferred by sub section 1,2, and 3 of the section 28 of the Act. In case any admission is done in-contravention of procedure, rules or guidelines framed by the admission committee then the concerned university may prohibits such students from appearing in the examination in pursuance to power conferred by sub-section 6 of section 28 of the Act. Sub-section 6 is mandatory in nature. In case admission is done beyond the sanctioned strength, the vice chancellor may take appropriate action in accordance to law and students so admitted may be debarred to appear in the examination.
14. It has been settled by a Division Bench of this court in a case reported in 1985 ALJ 290 Ramesh Vs. Vice Chancellor that the admission committee is competent to prescribe the number of students to be admitted in each course or session. Candidates does not have got vested or absolute right to get admission in a College or University or to appear in the examination (1986 ALJ 135, Kamal Singh Vs. Vice chancellor Allahabad University). Under Section 13 of the U.P. States Universities Act it is the duty of Vice Chancellor to supervise and control the affairs of university including its constituents colleges. The vice chancellor shall be responsible for holding and conducting the university examination properly and shall also be responsible to ensure that result of all such examinations are published expeditiously so that academic session of the university starts and ends on a proper dates. For convenience sub-section 1,2 of Section 13 is reproduced as under:-
"13. Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor--(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall--
(a) exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University including the constituent Colleges and the Institutes maintained by the University and its affiliated and associated colleges ;
(b) given effect to the decisions of the authorities of the University;
(c) in the absence of the Chancellor, preside at meetings of the Court and at any convocation of the University ;
(d) be responsible for the maintenance of discipline in the University;
(e) be responsible for holding and conducting the University examinations properly and at due times and for ensuring that the results of such examinations are published expeditiously and that the academic session of the University starts and ends on proper dates.
(2) He shall be an ex officio member and Chairman of the Executive Council, Academic Council, and the Finance Committee.
(3) He shall have the right to speak in and otherwise to take part in the meeting of any other authority or body of the University but shall not by virtue of this sub-section be entitled to vote.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinance and he shall, without prejudice to the powers of the "Chancellor under Section 10 and 68 possess all such powers as may be necessary in that behalf.
(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to convene or cause to be convened meetings of the Executive Council, the Court, the Academic Council and the Finance Committee:
Provided that he may delegate this power to any other officer of the University.
(6) Where any matter other than the appointment of teacher of the University is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with by any officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit and shall forthwith report the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also to the officer, authority, or other body who or which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter:
Provided that no such action shall be taken by the Vice-Chancellor without the previous approval of the Chancellor, if it would involve a deviation from the provisions of the Statutes or the Ordinances :
Provided further that if the officers, authority or other body is of opinion that such action ought not to have been taken, it may refer the matter to the Chancellor who may either confirm the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor or annul the same or modify it in such manner, as he thinks fit and thereupon, it shall cease to have effect or, as the case may be, take effect in the modified form, so however, that such annulment or modification shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done by or under the order of the Vice-Chancellor :
Provided also that any person in the service of University who is aggrieved by the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under this sub-section, shall have the right to appeal against such action to the Executive Council within three months from the date on which decision on such action is communicated to him and thereupon, the Executive Council may confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor.
(7) Nothing in sub-section (6) shall be deemed to empower the vice-Chancellor to incur any expenditure not duly authorised and provided for in the budget.
(8) Where the exercise of the power by the Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (6) involves the appointment of an officer, such appointment shall terminate on appointment being made in the prescribed manner or on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order of the Vice-Chancellor, whichever is earlier.
(9) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers as may be laid down by the Statutes and the Ordinances."
Apart from section 28, under section 33 of the Act every university shall have an examination committee. Under Sub section 4 of Section 29 of the Act the examination committee shall have power to debar the student from appearing in future examination on the use of unfair means.
15. Under Section 37 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the Executive Council of the University has power to grant sanction with previous approval of the State Government to admit students of particular number in any college subject to fulfilment of necessary conditions with regard to affiliation and every affiliated college shall furnish report, returns and other particulars as the Executive Council or the Vice-Chancellor may call for. Inspection of affiliated colleges shall be done. In the event of non-compliance of necessary conditions, affiliation may be withdrawn.
16. Section 45 of the Universities Act provides that the minimum qualification on the basis of which a student can be admitted for higher education. It also empowers the university to provide further qualification, curriculum through its ordinance. For convenience, Section 45 of the Universities Act is reproduced as under:
"45.Admission of Students: (1) No student shall be eligible for admission to the course of study for a degree unless-
(a) he has passed-
(i)the Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, or of any University or Board incorporated by any law for the time beingn in force; or
(ii)any examination, or any degree conferred by any other University being an examination or degree recognized by the University equivalent to the Intermediate Examination or to a degree of the University; and
(b) he possesses such qualification, if any, as may be specified in the Ordinances;
Provided that the University may prescribe by Ordinances any lower qualifications for admission to a degree (2) The conditions under which students may be admitted to the diploma courses of the University shall be prescribed by the Ordinances.
(3) The University shall have the power to recognized (for the purposes of admission to a course of study for a degree), as equivalent to its own degree, any degree conferred by any other University or, as equivalent to the Intermediate Examination of any Indian University, any examination conducted by any other authority.
(4) Any student whose work or conduct is unsatisfactory may be removed from the University or an Institute or a constituent college or an affiliated or associated college in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinances."
17. Statute 11.22 to 11.27 of the First Statutes, 1978 of the University provides that by 15th August of every year, the Principal of every affiliated college, shall submit a certificate to the effect that they fulfil all requirements with regard to affiliation. A follow up action shall be taken keeping in view the report in terms of Statute 11.23. According to Statute 11.26, the maximum number of students in a class shall be 60. However, it can be raised to 80 with the permission of Vice-Chancellor. Naturally, while granting permission to raise students strength of a class from 60 to 80, the Vice-Chancellor shall ensure that college possesses necessary infrastructure including teachers to meet out requirements. For convenience, Statute 11.22 to 11.27 are reproduced as under:-
" धारा 37 तथा 49 (ड) 11.22-- प्रत्येक सम्बद्घ महाविद्यालय प्रति वर्ष 15अगस्त तक प्राचार्य से कुलसचिव को इस आशय का एक प्रमाण-पत्र प्रस्तुत करेगा कि सम्बद्घता के लिए निर्धारित शर्तें पूरी होती जा रही हैं।
11.23-- प्रत्येक सम्बद्घ महाविद्यालय सम्बद्घ महाविद्यालयों के लिए अपेक्षित रजिस्टरों को रखेगा और समय-समय पर कुलसचिव को ऎसे प्रपत्र में, जैसा कि विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा अपेक्षा की जाय, विवरणी प्रस्तुत करेगा।
11.24--(1) जहां कार्य परिषद् अथवा कुलपति किसी सम्बद्घ महाविद्यालय का निरीक्षण करायें वहां वह महाविद्वालय को ऎसे निरीक्षण के परिणाम और उसके सम्बन्ध में अपने विचार सूचित कर सकता है और की जाने वाली कार्यवाही के बारे में प्रबन्धतन्त्र को निर्देश दे सकता है।
(2) जहां सम्बद्घ महाविद्यालय का प्रबन्धतन्त्र कार्य-परिषद् या कुलपति के संतोषानुसार कार्यवाही न करें, वहां परिषद् या तो स्वप्रेरणा से या कुलपति से इस आशय की प्राप्त रिपोर्ट पर प्रबन्धतंत्र द्वारा प्रस्तुत किसी स्पष्टीकरण अथवा अभ्यावेदन पर विचार करने के पश्चात ऎसे निर्देश जारी कर सकती है जो वह उचित समझे, और प्रबन्धतन्त्र ऎसे निर्देशों का पालन करेगा। निर्देशों का अनुपालन न करने पर कार्य-परिष्द् परिनियम 11.31 के अधीन अथवा अनुसार कार्यवाही कर सकती है।
11.25-- महाविद्यालय के अध्यापक वर्ग के समस्त पदों के सम्बन्ध में जो अस्थायी अथवा स्थायी रूप से रिक्त हों, सूचना उनके रिक्त होने के दिनांक से पन्द्रह दिन के भीतर कुलसचिव को दी जायेगी।
11.26--किसी सम्बद्घ महाविद्यालय में किसी कक्षा अथवा अनुभाग (सेक्शन) में छात्रों की संख्या, अध्ययन कक्ष में व्याख्यान के प्रयोजनार्थ बिना कुलपति की पूर्वानुज्ञा के 60 से अधिक न होगी, किन्तु यह किसी भी दशा में 80 से अधिक न होगी।
11.27-- किसी महाविद्यालय द्वारा किसी कक्षा में कोई नया अनुभाग खोलने के पूर्व, अपेक्षित अतिरिक्त अध्यापक वर्ग (उनकी अर्हतायें और वेतन नये अनुभाग की अध्यापन सारिणी, उपलब्ध स्थान तथा अतिरिक्त उपस्कर एवं पुस्तकालय की सुविधाओं की व्यवस्था) के सम्बन्ध में पूरी सूचना विश्वविद्यालय को भेजी जायगी और कुलपति की पूर्व अनुज्ञा प्राप्त की जायगी।"
18. Statute 11.28 provides that affiliation shall be subject to fulfilment of necessary conditions. Statute 11.31 provides that in case conditions with regard to affiliation, are not fulfilled, the affiliation may be suspended till the requirement of non-fulfilment. Statute 11.32 provides that University may cancel affiliation in the event of non-fulfilment of required conditions. For convenience, Statute 11.28, 11.31 and 11.32 are reproduced as under:--
"सम्बद्घता वापस लेना धारा 37 तथा 49 (ड) 11.28-- सम्बद्घता का बना रहना इस बात पर निर्भर करेगा कि विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा निर्धारित शर्तों का बराबर पालन किया जा रहा है।
11.31-- यदि कोई महाविद्यालय सम्बद्घता की शर्तों को पूरा करने के सम्बन्ध में विश्वविद्यालय की अपेक्षाओं की उपेक्षा करे और विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा नोटिस जारी किये जाने के बावजूद भी शर्तों को पूरा न करे तो कार्य परिष्द्, कुलाधिपति की पूर्व स्वीकृति से, तब तक के लिये सम्बद्घता निलम्बित कर सकती है जब तक कि कार्यपरिष्द् के संतोषानुसार शर्तें पूरी न कर दी जाय।
11.32--(1) कार्य-परिष्द कुलाधिपति की पूर्व स्वीकृति से, किसी सम्बद्घ महाविद्यालय को या तो पूर्णतः अथवा किसी उपाधि या विषय में सम्बद्घता के विशेषाधिकारों से वंचत कर सकती है यदि वह कार्य परिषद् के निर्देशों का अनुपालन न करें अथवा सम्बद्घता की शर्तों को पूरा न करे, या घोर कुप्रबन्ध के कारण अथवा किसी अन्य कारण से कार्य परिषद् की यह राय हो कि महाविद्यालय को ऎसी सम्बद्घता से वंचित किया जाना चाहिये।
(2) यदि अध्यापक वर्ग के वेतन का भुगतान नियमित रूप से न किया जाय अथवा अध्यापकों को उनका वह वेतन न दिया गया हो जिसके लिये वे परिनियमों अथव अध्यादेशों के अधीन हकदार थे, तो सम्बद्घ महाविद्यालय की सम्बद्घता इस परिनियम के अर्थान्तर्गत वापस ली जा सकेगी।"
In view of the above, no admission may be made beyond the sanctioned strength in violation of teacher-student ratio. This apart, after 15th August of the calendar year, the University and affiliated colleges cannot admit students keeping in view the requirement of Statute 11.22.
19. The UGC (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009 (in short 2009 Regulations) deals with the conditions of affiliation of colleges. Regulation 3 deals with the eligibility criteria for temporary affiliation, which is reproduced as under:-
"3. Eligibility Criteria for Temporary Affiliation:
3.1. The proposed college seeking affiliation, at the time of inspection by the university, shall satisfy the following requirements, or the requirements in respect of any of them prescribed by the Statutory/Regulatory body concerned, whichever is higher.
3.1.1.undisputed ownership and possession of land measuring not less than 2 acres if it is located in metropolitan cities, and 5 acres if it is located in other areas;
3.1.2.Administrative, academic and other buildings with sufficient accommodation to meet the immediate academic and other space requirements as specified by the University concerned for each of the higher education course/programme with adequate scope for future expansion in conformity with those prescribed by the UGC/ Statutory/Regulatory body concerned, taking care that all buildings constructed in the college are disabled friendly;
3.1.3.academic building sufficient to accommodate the faculties, lecture/seminar rooms, library and laboratories with a minimum of 15 sq. ft. per student in lecture/seminar rooms/library and 20 sq. ft. per student in each of the laboratories;
3.1.4.number of teaching and non-teaching staff as per University norms;
3.1.5.adequate civic facilities for essentials like water, electricity, ventilation, toilets, sewerage, etc., in conformity with the norms laid down by the Central/State PWD;
3.1.6.a library with at least 1000 books, or 100 books in different titles on each subject, whichever is more, of the proposed programmes to include both text books and reference books, besides two journals per subject, along with a book bank facility for students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and such other sections as may be specified by the UGC from time to time.
3.1.7.Necessary laboratory equipments as prescribed by the University/ Statutory/ Regulatory body concerned, for each of the higher education programmes;
3.1.8.a multi purpose complex/an auditorium and facilities for sports, canteen, health care, separate common rooms and separate hostels for boys and girls as per the local requirements as decided by the University;
3.1.9.appropriate furniture for lecture/seminar rooms, laboratories, library faculty rooms, rooms for administrative staff including the Principal, multi purpose complex/ auditorium, common rooms and hostel rooms, and for other facilities;
3.1.10.a duly constituted managing body as specified by the University."
From the UGC Regulations it is obvious that 15 sq. ft. area should be given to per student in lecture/seminar rooms, library and 20 sq. ft. area to per student in each of the laboratories. The number of teaching and non-teaching staff should be as per Universities norms. Admittedly, according to Statutes, the number of students in per class, should be 60 and accordingly, the ratio of teacher-student should be 1:70 subject to approval by Vice-Chancellor.
20. State Government has issued circulars reiterating the normal ratio of teacher-student as 1:60, which may be extended to 70.
21. According to Circulars issued by the State Government in every section of a class, maximum number of students should be 60, meaning thereby, teacher student ratio should be 1:60.
22. The provisions contained in the First Statute and policy decision taken by the State Government providing teacher students ratio to 1:60 or maximum 1:70 is binding. The University, its affiliated colleges or associate colleges, have got no right to discharge their obligations in contravention of First Statute or the provisions contained in the U.P. State Universities Act and the Rules framed thereunder, UGC Guidelines and Circulars of the State Government.
23. The educational institutions are expected to develop a scientific tamper, humanism, spirit of enquiry and reform and strive to provide excellence in all sphere of individual and collective activity so that coming generation may raise to highest standard of life.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported in (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 435-State of Maharastra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Others, has held as under:-
"The disregard to statutory compliance would amount to letting loose of innocence and unwary children. The proceedings of the recent seminar held in Delhi, as published by the Times of India dated 4th August, 1992, would demonstrate the admission by the teachers that they are not properly trained to cope up with the growing needs of the society and are unsuited to the duties they have to shoulder in imparting teaching to the children. The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. Formal education needs proper equipping by the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well equipped teacher could bring the needed skill and intellectual capabilities to the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a Principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast ever changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Art 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc."
In one another case reported in (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 238-Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa and Others Vs State of Karnataka and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Vikas Sahebrao Roundale's Case.
24. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 645: Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Other Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, has held that the government has got right to provide rules and regulations for regulating the admission of students. For convenience, relevant portion of Unni Krishnan, U.P. and Others Case (Supra) is reproduced as under:-
"195. Private educational institutions may be aided as well as unaided. Aid given by the Government may be cent per cent or partial. So far as aided institutions are concerned, they have to abide by all the rules and regulations as may be framed by the Government and/or recognising(affiliating authorities in the matter of recruitment of teachers and staff, their conditions of service, syllabus, standard of teaching and so on. In particular, in the matter of admission of students, they have to follow the rule of merit and merit alone subject to any reservations made under Article 15. They shall not be entitled to charge any fees higher than what is charged in Governmental institutions for similar courses. These are and shall be understood to be the conditions of grant of aid. The reason is simple: public funds, when given as grant and not as loan carry the public character wherever they go; public funds cannot be donated for private purposes. The element of public character necessarily means a fair conduct in all respects consistent with the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 15. All the Governments and other authorities in charge of granting aid to educational institutions shall expressly provide for such conditions (among others), if not already provided, and shall ensure compliance with the same."
2. A citizen of this country may have a right to establish an educational institution but no citizen, person or institution has a right much less a fundamental right, to affiliation or recognition, or to grant-in-aid from the State. The recognition and/or affiliation shall be given by the State subject only to the conditions set out in, and only accordance with the scheme contained in Part III of this Judgment. No Government/University or authority shall be competent to grant recognition or affiliation except in accordance with the said scheme. The said scheme shall constitute a condition of such recognition or affiliation, as the case may be, in addition to such other conditions and terms which such Government, University or other authority may choose to impose.
Those receiving aid shall however, be subject to all such terms and conditions, as the aid giving authority may impose in the interest of general public."
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a famous case reported in JT 2002 (9) SCI and 2002 (8) SCC 481 T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors has held that the admission in the institutions which are receiving grant in aid from the State government may be regulated by the State Government by issuing appropriate orders. For Convenience, the relevant portion from T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case (Supra) is reproduced as under:-
"152. At the same time, the admissions to aided institutions, whether awarded to minority or non-minority students, cannot be at the absolute sweet will and pleasure of the management of minority educational institutions. As the regulations to promote academic excellence and standards do not encroach upon the guaranteed rights under Article 30, the aided minority educational institutions can be required to observe inter se merit amongst the eligible minority applicants and passage of common entrance test by the candidates, where there is one, with regard to admissions in professional and non-professional colleges. If there is no such test, a rational method of assessing comparative merit has to be evolved. As regards the non-minority segment, admission may be on the basis of the common entrance test and counselling by a state agency. In the courses for which such a test and counselling are not in vogue, admission can be on the basis of relevant criteria for the determination of merit. It would be open to the state authorities to insist on allocating a certain percentage of seats to those belonging to weaker sections of society, from amongst the non-minority seats.
161. Q5(b) Whether the minority institutions' right of admission of students and to lay down procedure and method of admission, if any, would be affected in any way by the receipt of State aid?
A. While giving aid to professional institutions, it would be permissible for the authority giving aid to prescribe by-rules or regulations, the conditions on the basis of which admission will be granted to different aided colleges by virtue of merit, coupled with the reservation policy of the state qua non-minority students. The merit may be determined either through a common entrance test conducted by the concerned University or the Government followed by counselling, or on the basis of an entrance test conducted by individual institutions--the method to be followed is for the university or the government to decide. The authority may also devise other means to ensure that admission is granted to an aided professional institution on the basis of merit. In the case of such institutions, it will be permissible for the government or the university to provide that consideration should be shown to the weaker sections of the society."
26. Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case (Supra) has been again considered in one another case reported in (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 697- Islamic Academy of Education and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and Another (Supra) has proceeded to hold as under:-
"110. The professional institutions indisputable are governed by statutes like the MCI Act, the AICTE Act and the UGC Act. In terms of the provisions of the statutes and the regulations framed thereunder, the private professional institutions are required to maintain certain standards. They cnanot be deviated or departed from. In the context of giving admissions to the meritorious students, it cannot be said that the students belonging to the minority community shall be admitted without reference to merit.
111. The courts, it is relevant to place on record, would not encourage establisment of pseudo minority institutions imparting professional courses. The statutory rules and regulations, thus, must be equally applied to all the professional institutions whether aided or unaided, whether run by a minority or non-minority. In the matter of maintenance of standard, these institutions must be equally treated.
112. If it be held that the minority institutions can admit all the students belonging to their own community whereas the non-minority institutions cannot, the same, in my opinion, would amount to rewriting the judgment.
121. The right to administer does not amount to the right to maladminister and the right is not free from regulation. The regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. The regulatory measures can be laid down by the State in the administration of minority institutions."
27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 516: University of Delhi. Vs. Raj Singh and others, held that under the UGC Act, 1956, the regulation or guidelines issued by the UGC, is binding. It is the responsibility of UGC to regulate and maintain the standard and the coordination of work and other facilities of Universities. In case UGC guidelines provides teacher-student ratio to 1:60, then it shall be binding and must be complied with by the Universities and its affiliated and associated college.
28. In (2009) 4 SCC 590: Annamalai University represented by Registrar. Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that UGC Act will prevail over other Acts and Regulations. Any act done in violation of Act and Regulations framed thereunder, cannot be validated by any authority under another Act.
29. In (2005) 5 SCC 420: Prof. Yashpal and another. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that norms for admission do have connection with the standard of education. University having no infrastructure or teaching facility, being in a position to confer degree, could create complete chaos in the matter of coordination and maintenance of standards in higher education, which could be highly detrimental for the whole nation. The standard of education depends on various factors, to quote relevant portion of para 32:-
"32. ...The standard of education in an institution depends on various factors like, (i) the calibre of teaching staff; (ii) a proper syllabus designed to achieve high level of education in a given span of time; (iii) the student-teacher ratio; (iv) equipment and laboratory facilities; (v) calibre of the students admitted; (vi) adequate accommodation in the institution; (vii) the standard of examinations held including the manner in which the papers are set and examined; and (viii) the evaluation of practical examinations done. It was pointed out that education involves a continuous interaction between the teachers and the students. The base of teaching, the level to which teaching can rise and the benefit which the students ultimately receive depends as much on the calibre of the students as on the calibre of the teachers and the availability of adequate infrastructural facilities."
Their lordships further held as under:-
"33. The consistent and settled view of this Court, therefore, is that in spite of incorporation of Universities as a legislative head being in the State List, the whole gamut of the University which will include teaching, quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and also research activity being carried on will not come within the purview of the State legislature on account of a specific Entry on co- ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical education being in the Union List for which the Parliament alone is competent..."
30. In (2011) 6 SCC 145: Abhyudya Sanstha. Vs. Union of India and others, the controversy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with regard to admission without having proper affiliation in accordance with the norms of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCET Act). Their lordships noted the decline in the values of life after taking into account earlier judgment reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114: Dalip Singh. Vs. State of U.P., ruled that students who have been admitted in an institution having no affiliation, are not entitled for any sympathy. Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the trend of institutions and colleges to make business and earn profit in the name of education, to quote:--
"21. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., this Court noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and observed:
"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. ''satya' (truth) and ''ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
22. ...However, with a view to make business and earn profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the judicial process for allocation of the students. Therefore, there is no valid ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made by the appellants in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court will be detrimental to the national interest. The students who may have taken admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based education to the future generation of the country. Rather, they may train young minds as to how one can succeed in life by manipulations. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court."
31. In (2012) 2 SCC 16: Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM BeD College. Vs. National Council for Teachers Education and others, their lordships reiterated that admission made in violation of Rules in unrecognised institutions, does not warrant any sympathy. Their lordships noted with deep concern over the mushroom growth of ill-equipped, understaffed and unrecognised educational institutions, to quote relevant portion:-
"11. Mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and un-recognised educational institutions was noticed by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 435. This Court observed that the field of education had become a fertile, perennial and profitable business with the least capital outlay in some States and that societies and individuals were establishing such institutions without complying with the statutory requirements. The unfortunate part is that despite repeated pronouncements of this Court over the past two decades deprecating the setting up of such institutions. The mushrooming of the colleges continues all over the country at times in complicity with the statutory authorities, who fail to check this process by effectively enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder."
32. The aforesaid proposition has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2012) 3 SCC 430: Deepa Thomas and others. Vs. Medical Council of India and others.
33. In view of the above, it shall be obligatory for the State Government to sanction the post and ensure necessary infrastructure in terms of University Grants Commission [Affiliation of Colleges by Universities] (1st Amendments) Regulations, 2012 as amended by Notification dated 26.3.2012. Admittedly, permission has been granted for 714 students in B. Com. Course and keeping in view the sanction to admit 714 students in B. Com. Course (three years), respondent's College raised demand for 11 teachers but instead of 11, only 2 teachers were sanctioned by the State Government, vide order dated 25.5.1998, which seems to be not justified more so in view of the Regulations, 2009 as amended in 2012 by UGC. The reason assigned for sanction of 2 posts for 714 students, is neither lawful nor justified.
34. Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel had defended State action and relied upon certain Government orders whereby, decision has been taken by the State Government thereby stopping the payment of salary in newly created courses and teachers appointed therein.
The orders have been filed by the Secretary Higher Education, Sri T. Venkatesh in his affidavit dated 30.1.2013.
35. By the Government order dated 21.8.2000, the State Government took decision and communicated that in future salary shall not be paid to teachers in the Government aided colleges for new courses. The Government took a decision not to provide grant-in-aid for opening of new course.
By another Government order dated 30.8.2000, the earlier Government order dated 21.8.2000 (supra) was reiterated further clarifying that where usual fees is charged in self-financing scheme, in colleges they may be treated colleges as under self-financing scheme. It further provides that fees shall be charges under self-financing scheme in terms of Government order dated 11.11.1997.
36. By another Government order dated 26.3.2003, the State Government again circulated its decision that where strength of students is increased without prior sanction of the Government in Government aided colleges, the demand is raised for creation of post, in such cases, no financial aid shall be provided to additional posts of teachers created by the Committee of management. Keeping in view the letter and spirit of the aforesaid Governments, there appears to be no room of doubt that the Government aided colleges receiving grant-in-aid, the strength of students is sanctioned prior to 26.3.2003 and courses were opened prior to 30.8.2000, then it shall be obligatory for the Government not only to sanction the strength of teacher keeping in view the sanctioned strength of students but also to pay them salary. These Government orders have got prospective application.
37. Otherwise also, no decision may be taken by the Government affecting right of Committee of Management retrospectively depriving them of receiving grant-in-aid and creation of post where the strength of student was sanctioned prior to 30.8.2000.
38. In the case reported in AIR 1996 SC 1: State of Maharashtra. Vs. Manubhai Pragji Vashi and others, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that State have got no right to discriminate on the ground of paucity of fund while providing grant-in-aid. No hostile treatment can be imparted while dealing with educational institutions for any reason whatsoever. To quote relevant portion of para 9 of the said judgment:-
"9. ... One facet of education cannot be selected for hostile discriminatory treatment, whatever may be the other laudable activities pursued by the Government in the matter of education or its discretion to assign the order of priorities in different spheres of education."
39. In a case reported case in (2000) 2 SCC 42: Chandigarh Administration and others. Vs. Rajni Vali (Mrs) and others,their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that purpose of grant-in-aid is to ensure smooth running of institution and the standard of teaching should not suffer on account of paucity of fund. To quote relevant portion:-
"It is a constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. In line with this principle, the State has enacted statutes and framed rules and regulations to control/regulate establishment and running of private schools at different levels. The State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools with a view to ensure smooth running of the institution and to ensure that the standard of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of funds. It needs no emphasis that appointment of qualified and efficient teachers is a sine qua non for maintaining high standards of teaching in any educational institution."
40. In another case reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332: State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamta Mohanty,their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid proposition holding that paucity of fund cannot be a ground for State to compromise the quality of its education. Relevant portion from the case of Mamta Mohanty (supra), is reproduced as under:-
"17. ... Paucity of funds cannot be a ground for the State not to provide quality education to its future citizens. It is for this reason that in order to maintain the standard of education the State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools to ensure the smooth running of the institutions so that the standard of teaching may not suffer for want of funds."
41. In case in the light of aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court the controversy is considered, their appears to be no reason for Director Higher Education to sanction only two posts against the sanctioned strength of 714 students. Keeping in view the teacher-students ratio of 1:70 respondents college was not unjustified in raising demand for sanction of 11 teachers. While providing sanctioned strength of teachers, it shall be obligatory for the State Government to abide by the UGC Regulations and the teacher-student ratio provided by the Act and statutes. It must be borne in mind that in one class the number of students may not be more than 60 and for every class at least there must be one teacher to impart education for the period of 60 minutes. It is neither feasible nor justified for the State Government to run the colleges banking upon part time lecturers in violation of Regulations (supra). Once the State Government sanctioned strength of students, then simultaneously it shall be obligatory on the Government to sanction the strength of teachers and pay them salary. Of course, for self-financing scheme burden for payment of salary may be shifted on the shoulder of Committee of Management. For self-financing course or alike course where subject and strength of teacher has not been sanctioned by the State Government burden to pay salary to teacher and staff shall be shifted on the shoulder of Committee of Management but even in that case, it shall be obligatory for the Committee of Management to abide by the standards provided by the Act, statutes and UGC Regulations. In the event of non-compliance of educational standards provided by the Regulations and statutes (supra), it shall be incumbent on the University concerned to withdraw affiliation or recognition keeping in view the statutory mandate.
42. There is one other aspect of the matter which arose during the course of hearing and in public interest. We invited affidavits and proceeded to adjudicate the controversy after hearing parties counsel.
43. The controversy relates to admission of students to more than sanctioned strength. While deciding private dispute, public interest may be looked into by this Court while exercising power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
44. The affidavit dated 30.1.2013 filed by the Secretary, Higher Education reveals that in B. Com. in the following colleges, students have been admitted more than sanctioned strength:-
Sl. No. Name of College Name of Course Number of sanctioned strength of seats for admission and admitted students (2010-2011) Number of sanctioned strength of seats for admission and admitted students (2012-2013) Number of sanctioned strength of seats.
Number of admitted students.
Number of sanctioned strength of seats.
Number of admitted students.1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.
S. R. K. College, Firozabad.
B. Com.
720 735 720 9822. Dharm Samaj College, Aligarh.
B. Com.
720 247 720 7653. Shri Varshney College, Aligarh.
B. Com.
720 897 720 7184. Sri Jai Narain P.G. College, Lucknow.
B. Com.
880 1103 880 11015. Shia Post Graduate Mahavidyalay, Lucknow.
B. Com.
875 875 875 10076. Rajkiya Mahavidyalay, Harakh, Barabanki.
B. Com.
---
63---
607. Ramabai Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya, Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar.
B. Com.
---
19---
218. Pt. Ramlakhan Shukla, Rajkiya Mahavidyala, Alapur Ambedkar Nagar.
B. Com.
---
84---
819. Baba Baruadas Post Graduate Mahavidyalay, Paruiya Ashram B. Com.
---
457---
58710. K. S. Saket Post Graduate Mahavidyalay, Ayodhya.
B. Com.
320 480 320 61711. Rajkiya Mahavidyalay, Budaon.
B. Com.
120 150 160 16012. Damyanti Raj Anand Rajkiya Mahavidyalay, Bisauli, Budaon.
B. Com.
162 182 160 16013. Ram Lumbhai Sahni Rajkiya Mahila Mahavidyalay, Pilibhit.
B. Com.
80 96 80 8014. Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Rajkiya Mahavidyalay, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur.
B. Com.
80 92 80 8015. Rajkiya Raza Post Graduate Mahavidyalay, Rampur.
B. Com.
320 370 302 31416. Rajkiya Mahila Post Graduate Mahavidyalay, Rampur.
B. Com.
120 144 160 16017. Ramabai Ambedkar Rajkiya Mahavidyalay, Gajraula, J.P. Nagar.
B. Com.
60 65 160 15718. Rajkiya Mahavidyalay, Sambhal, Moradabad.
B. Com.
160 100 160 16219. Bareilly College, Bareilly.
B. Com.
1040 1220 1040 104220. Upadhi Mahavidyala, Pilibhit.
B. Com.
180 210 180 18021. S.S. College, Shahjahanpur.
B. Com.
240 284 320 30022. Nehru Memorial Shiv Narain Das Mahavidyalay, Budaon.
B. Com.
160 188 160 16023. S.S. College, Chandauli, Moradabad.
B. Com.
320 382 320 32024. Hindu College, Moradabad.
B. Com.
960 1126 960 97125. Vardhman College, Bijnore.
B. Com.
240 279 240 23626. Sahu Jain College, Najibabad, Bijnore.
B. Com.
80 95 80 8027. D.P. B.S. Degree College, Anoopshahr (Bulandshahr).
B. Com. (S. F.) 120 156 120 160
28. D.J. College, Beraur (Baghpat).
B. Com.
120 190 120 16029. I.P. College, Bulandshahr.
B. Com.
120 199 120 16030. Government College, Pawanka, (Saharanpur).
B. Com.
60 171 60 8031. Vijay Singh Pathik Government Mahavidyalaya, Kairana (Prabudh Nagar).
B. Com.
120 193 120 20732. Km. Mayawati Government Mahila Degree College, Badalpur (G.B. Nagar).
B. Com.
60 45 60 8745. In other courses also like B.A., B.Sc., also the students have been admitted more than sanctioned strength.
46. There appears to be no room of doubt that colleges who admitted students beyond sanctioned strength or where student-teacher ratio has not been adhered to requires immediate attention and they should be restrained to admit students more than the teacher-student ratio provided by Statute, UGC.
47. The second limb of question involved is that of grant of salary to teachers and staff. It shall be obligatory on the part of the State Government to sanction required number of teachers keeping in view the teacher-student ratio and pay salary. Paucity of fund or any other problem whatsoever should not come in the way so far as the requirement of teachers is concerned.
48. Attention has been invited to Government order dated 30.8.2000 whereby, the State Government took a decision that while opening new course in aided and non-aided colleges, no financial aid shall be given. So far as the non-aided colleges are concerned, the Government has option to deprive them of financial assistance. The continuance of the course or opening of new course without prior sanction shall be at the risk of the college but so far as the aided colleges are concerned, in case the Government sanctions the opening of new course and the number of students required for admission in such course, then the Government cannot deprive the teachers appointed in such institutions from receiving salary from the Government fund (supra). Of course, in the self-financing scheme where new courses are opened on certain pre-conditions, shifting of liability on the Committee of Management, not unlawful. It is for the Committee of Management to look into the matter and open the course keeping in view its financial viability. The Government cannot compel the Committee of Management or institutions to open course in the Government aided institutions without providing financial aid. Where the Committee of Management is to bear the financial burden, then subject rules it is for the Committee of Management to take a decision for opening of new course at its end keeping in view the financial viability.
49. Where the burden is on the Committee of Management to pay salary, in that case, it shall be necessary for the Committee of Management to pay reasonable salary or minimum of the pay scale, necessary for human living.
50. In a recent judgment reported in (2012) 10 SCC 770: Rajan Purohit and others. Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its deep concern to the unhygienic conditions of various colleges and required that civil amenities and other related infrastructure should be provided keeping in view the number of students getting education in respective colleges.
51. Coming to present controversy, there appears to be no room of doubt that teacher-student ratio has not been adhered to. Number of students admitted to respective colleges are more than the sanctioned strength spoiling academic atmosphere of the colleges.
The State Government has failed to discharge its obligation while sanctioning the required post of teachers keeping in view the sanctioned strength of the students (supra). Such an action on the part of the State Government is constitutionally, not appreciable.
52. So far as the impugned order is concerned, it appears that the Committee of Management took a decision against the petitioner on the basis of report submitted by the Head of Department. The report of Head of Department is based on unfounded facts keeping in view the number of students. The Vice-Chancellor has failed to apply his mind to the fact that there are only two sanctioned teachers in B. Com. course to impart education in the college. Accordingly, the report given by the Head of Department, suffers from vice of arbitrariness and based on unfounded facts. The Vice-Chancellor should have applied his mind to the necessity of College and the order passed by the Committee of Management keeping in view the number of students admitted in B. Com. Course. Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor seems to have failed to discharge duty with regard to statutory obligations provided by the Act and Statutes. The impugned order seems to suffer from vice of arbitrariness.
53. We have noticed that not only in the respondent's college, but in other colleges of the State of U.P., the students are admitted without following the norms prescribed by the Statute as well as the UGC. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Government should look into it and appropriate orders/circulars should be issued immediately commanding different universities and colleges aided as well as non-aided, containing following directions:-
(i) No student shall be admitted in the college and universities beyond the sanctioned strength.
(ii) Director of Higher Education or the State Government as the case may be, shall sanction the teachers keeping in view the sanctioned strength of the students in the recognised courses of the universities, colleges receiving grant-in-aid and pay salary.
(iii) All those courses which are open under self-financing scheme, the universities as well as colleges shall at least pay minimum pay scale admissible to teachers in accordance with Rules. The services of teachers appointed under the self-financing scheme, should be permitted to continue till continuance of course or satisfactory discharge of duty.
(iv) Since 2000 and onward, the Government has stopped the grant-in-aid and sanction of new course, even then Government shall ensure that Committee of Managements do not exploit the teachers and pay reasonable salary in contractual and ad hoc appointments in the recognised and affiliated colleges.
(v) Keeping in view the strength of students sanctioned prior to August, 2000, by the State Government, the Committee of management of Government aided colleges receiving grant-in-aid, be informed to send their proposal keeping in view the teacher-student ratio within specified period for sanctioning of posts for respective course by the Government.
54. Since the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and the Committee of Management has dispensed with petitioner's service on unfounded grounds, petitioner seems to be entitled for continuance in service till satisfactory discharge of duty or regular incumbent joins. Keeping in view the fact that only two sanctioned teachers are imparting education in B. Com to 1556 students, the Committee of Management is liable to engage more teachers on contract basis or otherwise in accordance with law to impart education to all the students of B. Com. Courses for the session 2012-2013. The Committee of Management of the college shall ensure that no student be admitted in B. Com. or any other subject beyond the sanctioned strength forthwith. With regard to recognised or aided courses, the Committee of Management shall approach the Director again for reconsideration of its case to sanction the teachers keeping in view the observations made in the body of the present judgment, within a month and Director of Higher Education shall reconsider the teachers strength afresh expeditiously.
55 With regard to unlawful admission of 1556 students in B. Com. Course, the Principal of the respondent college made statement and took decision that under the threat perception from the students of being assaulted, he was forced to admit students more than sanctioned strength. First Information Report was lodged. No security was provided by the District administration. In consequence thereof, we have directed SSP, Faizabad to provide security which has already been provided. It shall be appropriate to SSP, Faizabad to continue with the security provided to the Principal of the respondent college for the period till after evaluating of situation, it is recorded that there is no threat perception to the Principal of the respondent college. However, it shall be appropriate that one gunner or shadow be provided to the Principal of the college permanently by the SSP, Faizabad keeping in view the present scenario.
56 Compulsion is no ground to admit the students beyond sanctioned strength. It is obligatory on the part of the State Government to maintain law and order in such a manner that Principals of different affiliated colleges or the Vice-Chancellor of the universities, are not compelled to admit students beyond sanctioned strength.
Taking sympathetic view, we do not intend to direct to expel the students admitted beyond sanctioned strength, but respondent college shall appoint requisite number of teachers on its own for specified period to meet the requirement.
57. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. We allow the writ petition with following directions:-
(I). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 6.2.2012 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, with all consequential benefits. The Vice-Chancellor of the University is directed to pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made in the body of the judgment with regard to petitioner's service career expeditiously say, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and till then, status quo shall be maintained in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court.
(II). A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the Government of U.P. to provide teachers keeping in view the sanctioned strength of students as done prior to August, 2000 (supra), after taking into account the Statutes of various universities, UGC guidelines, Government circulars laying down teacher-student ratio. The State Government shall also ensure that number of teachers should be such that every section of every subject possesses teachers to impart education in different years of the discipline to meet out the requirement.
(III). Respondent college shall engage part time teachers to meet out the requirement of 1556 students within a month to impart education for the session 2012-2013. However, henceforth the number of students in B. Com. and other courses shall be confined to the extent of sanctioned strength. The State Government shall also ensure that in each and every college of U.P., students are admitted only in terms of sanctioned strength and not beyond that. The colleges admitting students beyond sanctioned strength from the session 2013-2014 be de-affiliated by the Universities and the Government and recognition be withdrawn.
(IV). The Government of U.P. shall issue a Government order or circular communicating to all the universities and affiliated colleges as well as related Government Departments in terms of observations made in the body of the present judgment (para 53 and others) for maintenance of standard of education keeping in view the teacher-student ratio expeditiously say, within two months.
The circular/Government order issued by the Government, shall be placed on record of this Court by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Registry shall list the writ petition after two months for appreciation of circular/ Government order (supra).
No orders as to costs.
[Justice Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II)] [Justice Devi Prasad Singh]
Order Date :- 01.03.2013
Rajneesh AR-PS)
[Delivered on 01.03.2013 ]