Allahabad High Court
Guru Jambheshwar University, ... vs S.M. College, Chandausi And 3 Others on 22 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 858 of 2025 Guru Jambheshwar University, Moradabad and another ..Petitioners(s) Versus S.M. College, Chandausi and 3 others ..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Prashant Mathur Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Gaur (S.C.), Gautam Baghel, Girish Kumar Yadav, Shambhavi Tiwari for Rohit Pandey Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3, Ms. Shambhavi Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and perused the material available on record.
2. This special appeal is directed against an interim order dated 26.08.2025, whereby learned Single Judge, while inviting response from the respondents in Writ C No. 27236 of 2025 (S.M. College and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), has directed the respondent No. 2, i.e. the present appellant- Guru Jambheshwar University, Moradabad, to enable the respondent No. 4, i.e. Bundelkhand University, Jhansi to reflect the name of the petitioner- institution namely S.M. College Chandausi, Sambhal, in the list of institutions which are participating in the counseling, subject to outcome of the writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner (S.M. College Chandausi, Sambhal) (herein-after referred to as the 'institution'), has been running B.Ed. course since 2004. The appellant-University issued a general circular dated 07.04.2025 requiring Principals of all affiliated institutions of the appellant-University running B.Ed. course to furnish certain information and documents. The petitioner responded to the notice. Thereafter, a circular was issued by the appellant-University on 04.07.2025 requiring all affiliated B.Ed. Colleges to upload required information/data on the link given. The petitioner institution claims to have uploaded the required documents on 05.07.2025, whereafter on 07.07.2025, it received a check list from the appellant-University asking more information. The petitioner claims to have provided the requisite information on 08.07.2025.
4. On 25.07.2025, the appellant-University, based upon examination of the record of the petitioner-institution and having found that though two units of students, i.e. 100 students, were allotted to B.Ed. course run by the institution, number of teachers working in the institution was less than those provided in the norms. Further, permanent funds and reserved funds were also said to be below the norms and, accordingly, the institution was directed to clarify the position, failing which an indication was made that it could be debarred from B.Ed. counseling.
5. The petitioner sent response dated 30.07.2025 alongwith certain documents to the University and as far as the number of teachers working in the institution, it was stated that at present, ten lecturers and one Head of Department were working and the process of selection qua five other lecturers was underway. A request was made from the University to include the petitioner-institution in B.Ed. counseling.
6. On 31.07.2025, the appellant University sent another communication to the petitioner-institution pointing out certain shortcomings, as indicated earlier vide notice dated 25.07.2025, and required the institution to submit original documents qua running of B.Ed. course, at the earliest.
7. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner-institution with a grievance that though satisfactory response to the notices was given by it, the name of the petitioner-institution did not find mention in the list of institutions which were allowed to participate for B.Ed. counseling, and, therefore, a writ of mandamus was prayed for commanding the respondent Nos. 2 and 4, i.e. appellant University as well as Bundelkhand University Jhansi, to include the name of the petitioner-institution in the counseling for B.Ed. course for the year 2025-27.
8. Before the learned Single Judge, based upon the instructions received by the appellants, a contention was raised by the appellant-University that since the petitioner was lacking in all standards as fixed by the University, no mandamus could be issued. On behalf of Bundelkhand University, a stand was taken that since affiliating University (appellant-University) had not forwarded the name of the petitioner-institution to participate in the counseling, its name was not reflected in the list of institutions.
9. Learned Single Judge, after noticing down the rival contentions, observed that the matter required consideration and, while issuing direction for exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits inter-se parties, the matter was posted for 11.11.2025 and, as an interim measure, direction as noted above was issued to reflect the name of the petitioner in the list of institutions that were participating in the counseling. The said direction has been made subject to outcome of the writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has made submissions that as per the norms set by National Council for Teacher Education, particularly in Regulation 5.1 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedures) Regulations, 2014 (herein-after referred to as the 'Regulations), for an intake to two basic units of 50 students each, i.e. total student strength of 200, (i.e., 100 students for each year), there shall be 16 full-time faculty of teachers, however, as per admitted case of the petitioner, as reflected from para 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner-institution is lacking the said requirement, inasmuch as five vacancies exist therein.
11. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards check list qua petitioner-institution wherein the number of working teachers was indicated as ten (10), which also is the stand of the institution in its response dated 30.07.2025 that ten lecturers with one Head of Department are working in the institution.
12. It is, therefore, contended that once the University has to follow the norms prescribed by the NCTE, non-inclusion of the petitioner institution in the list of institutions that are permitted to participate in counseling, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and, therefore, grant of interim relief is not justified. It is further contended that by granting the interim relief, learned Single Judge has virtually allowed the writ petition and, hence, the order impugned is unsustainable.
13. Two short counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the present appeal. By referring to the same, submission has been made on their behalf that though it is true that strength of teachers is below the norms fixed by the NCTE, it is the appellant-University that is responsible for not permitting the petitioner-institution to complete the strength of teachers by not providing subject experts, which inaction of the University is an impediment in completion of selection process.
14. Submission has been made that advertisement inviting applications from the respective candidates for being appointed as teacher, has already been issued and whatever delay is there, the same being attributable to the appellant-University, respondents cannot be made to suffer.
15. It is further contended that though by notice dated 25.07.2025, only an indication was made that the petitioner-institution could be deprived of participation in counseling process, no order has been passed by the appellants and, hence, once the petitioner had responded to the notices issued from time to time, in absence of any order passed by the appellants, only a writ of mandamus could be prayed for and, therefore, in the facts of the case, when an interim order has been passed which has been made subject to result of the writ petition, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge.
16. Learned counsel for Bundelkhand University has made same submissions that were made before the learned single judge.
17. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
18. At initial hearing of the matter, when the vacancy position was argued on behalf of respondent Nos 1 and 2, this Court orally asked learned counsel representing the said respondents to bring on record the dates of occurrence of vacancies in the institution. It is pursuant to such observation that second short counter affidavit dated 17.09.2025 has been filed wherein it is indicated that one teacher Chhavi Diwakar tendered her resignation on 10.02.2024, one Nitixa Sharma resigned on 20.02.2025, Dr. Ashish Kumar Singh resigned on 21.02.2025, services of Dr. Geeta were terminated on 08.04.2025 and Dr. Dipika Dayalu has not turned up in the institution since July, 2024. In the first short counter affidavit, dates of publishing advertisement in daily newspapers, have been indicated as 31.07.2025, 02.08.2025 and 04.08.2025.
19. When chronology of events is analyzed, the Court finds that first vacancy of the teachers arose on 10.02.2024 i.e. about 19 months ago, one teacher has not turned up for the last 14 months, two vacancies have arisen 7 months ago and one vacancy 5 months ago. Hence, attempt of the petitioner-institution to fill up the said posts by publishing advertisement on 31.07.2025, 02.08.2025 and 04.08.2025, when compared with the steps taken by the appellants, it stands revealed that the first step taken by the appellants was in terms of issuance of circular dated 07.04.2025 requiring the institution to furnish information and documents and the said action was followed by certain other circulars and notices dated 04.07.2025, 25.07.2025 and 31.07.2025. At all stages, the consistent stand of the petitioner-institution is that it does not fulfill the norms, however, a plea has been taken that process to appoint five teachers is underway. Therefore advertisement has been issued for the first time only on 31.07.2025 by which time, non-fulfillment of the norms as a ground for not permitting the institution has become apparent.
20. At this stage we may refer the requirement of having teachers for two basic units of 50 students each, i.e. total students of 200 (i.e., 100 students for each year). Regulation 5.1 of the Regulations, 2014 provides as under:
"5.1 Academic Faculty For an intake of two basic units of 50 students each, that is total students strength of 200, there shall 16 full-time faculty members. The distribution of faculty across different curricular areas shall be as under:
1. Principal/HoD One
2. Perspectives in Education Four
3. Pedagogy subjects Eight (Maths, Science, Social Science, Language)
4. Health and Physical Education One
5. Fine Arts One
6. Performing Arts (Music/Dance/Theatre) One"
21. A clear stand has been taken by the institution in para 15 of the writ petition that five vacancies of teachers exist in the institution. Therefore, admittedly, the institution does not fulfill the norms of 16 teachers as set by the NCTE.
22. In the aforesaid background, when we test the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that on the one hand, not passing any order pursuant to response submitted by the institution and on the other hand non-inclusion of its name in the list of institutions, amounts to patent illegality, we find no force in the submissions made. The reason is that appellant-University, being a State University governed by the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, is bound to follow the norms set up by the NCTE as far as B.Ed. counseling is concerned and once the material indicates lessor strength of teachers, which is much below the norms of 16 teachers, we find no justification for permitting the institution to participate in the counseling process at this stage.
23. As far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that by granting interim relief, virtually final relief has been granted, we are not inclined to accept the submission on that line at this stage for the reason that in absence of any order passed by the appellants debarring the petitioner-institution or rejecting their response, no writ of certiorari could be prayed for. At the same time, grant of interim relief which is in the nature of interim mandamus to the appellant University to allow the petitioner-institution to participate in the counseling, despite admitted position borne out from the record that the institution does not fulfill the norms, is found to be contrary to the principle governing the writ of mandamus. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the authority and consequent failure on the part of the authority to discharge the statutory obligations, vide Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another (2008) 2 SCC 280, Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334, Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar 1993(1) SCC 485.
24. We are conscious of the fact that the writ petition has not been finally allowed, nevertheless the nature of interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is in fact an interim mandamus qua which also the same principle, as enunciated in the abovenoted judgments, would apply. We could have made further observations based upon the record which is before us, however, since the present special appeal has arisen out of an interim order only, any further observation by us would affect the case of either of the parties before the writ Court, which is seized with the matter and many developments can take place during the pendency thereof which cannot be foreseen as of today.
25. In view of above discussion, the Special Appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The directions contained in paragraph 9 of the order impugned dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby set aside.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) September 22, 2025 Sazia