Orissa High Court
Governing Body vs University Grants Commission & Others on 29 January, 2014
Author: M.M. Das
Bench: M.M. Das
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK.
W.P.(C) No. 6755 of 2012
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India
-----------
Governing Body,
Gangadhar Mohapatra Law College, Puri
and another ...... Petitioners
-Versus-
University Grants Commission & others
...... Opp. Parties
For Petitioners : M/s. Sanjit Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
S. Nanda, S.P. Panda and
R.R. Swain.
For opp. parties : M/s. T.N. Pattanayak &
S. Pattanaik
(O.P. No.3)
M/s. J.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
SH. J.K. Mishra
P.C. Behera & S.S. Mohanty,
(O.P. NO.1)
-----------------------
Decided on 29.01.2014
-----------------------
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.M. DAS
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE C.R.DASH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. M. DAS, J.The petitioners are the Governing Body of Gangadhar Mohapatra Law College, Puri and the Secretary of the said Governing Body. The aforesaid Law College is aggrieved by the action of the University Grants Commission (for short, 'the UGC') opposite party No.1, in not releasing the balance sanctioned amount under the 11th Plan, i.e., for the period from 2007 to 2012.
2
2. The petitioner-college was established on 13.09.1981 by the educational agency, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Governing Body of the petitioner-college is being constituted as per the provisions of the Orissa Education Act. The college imparts undergraduate courses for LL.B. Course (Three years LL.B. Stream). It does not receive any grant-in-aid from the State of Odisha. The said LL.B. course is affiliated to the Utkal University, for which the petitioner-college has obtained permanent affiliation from the said University.
3. It is an admitted case that the UGC has accorded the petitioner-college with the status under Sections 2 (f) and 12 (B) of the UGC Act, 1956 and a certification of fitness was also granted by the UGC to the petitioner-college to that effect. The UGC admits to have released grants under the 8th, 9th and 10th Plan to the petitioner- college, which has been utilized by the petitioner-college for the purpose, for which the said grants were made.
4. The dispute in the present writ application is with regard to release of allocated amount under the 11th Plan to the petitioner-college. It appears that the parties are not in dispute with regard to the fact that on considering the proposal of the petitioner- college for construction of Moot-Court hall, development of sports infrastructure, improvement of teaching aids, procurement of additional equipments, provide remedial coaching classes for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other backward class students, coaching for entry into the service relating to the field of law and opening of career counselling cell etc. under the merged schemes, 3 the UGC accepted such proposal and approved for release of Rs.1,61,00,000/- during the said plan period. Admittedly, out of the aforesaid approved amount, an amount of Rs.60,82,320/- has been received by the petitioner-college. But while the projects were undertaken by the petitioner-college and were in the midst of implementation, abruptly, the UGC withheld the balance amount and did not provide the said amount to the petitioner-college with effect from October, 2011. The petitioner has further submitted that an amount of Rs.78,68,700/- was also approved as an additional grant to the petitioner-college, out of which only a sum of Rs.38,94,850/- has been received by it and the balance amount has not yet been released by the UGC. From the annexures to the writ application, it is evident that the petitioner-college brought to the notice of the UGC that the grant has been abruptly stopped, as a result whereof, the petitioner- college is unable to complete the work, for which the grants were approved. A representation was also made bringing it to the notice of the UGC that the 11th Plan will come to an end by 31st March, 2012. However, it is ascertained from the learned counsel for the UGC that though the 11th Plan period is already over, but the grants, which were not released during the 11th Plan period, are being released in phases to various colleges in the country as the 12th Plan has not commenced. The petitioner-college is aggrieved by such action of the UGC in not releasing the balance amount, which were approved for different purposes under the 11th Plan. Under Annexure - 8 to the writ application, the Joint Secretary of the UGC, Eastern Regional Office wrote to the Director, College Development Council, Utkal University to 4 inform the UGC regarding the status of the petitioner-college. It was further mentioned in the said letter that in the meanwhile, the petitioner-college may submit a proposal under the scheme for additional grant (equipment, teaching and learning aids) to the colleges already covered under Section 12(B) of the UGC Act, 1956. It was mentioned in the said letter as under :-
"However, if it is an unaided, self-
financing college, the college will not be eligible for assistance under this Scheme"
It further appears from Annexure - 12, which was obtained by the petitioner-college under the R.T.I. Act that by letter dated 09.07.2010, the Deputy Secretary of the UGC, New Delhi intimated all the Regional Offices that in continuation of the said office letter dated 14.06.2010 on the subject of recognition of the colleges under Section 2 (f) and 12(B) of the UGC Act, 1956 and funding of such unaided/self-financing colleges, a decision was taken by the UGC that for the present, the UGC will not be considering for giving grant to the unaided/self- financing colleges, even if they are included under Section 12(B) of the Act.
5. The letter dated 14.06.2010, which was obtained under the R.T.I. Act, has also been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-11, which reads as follows:-
"UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI.
No. 32/2005(CPP-1/C) 14 June 2010
To
The Registrar,
All State Universities (List attached).5
Sub: Recognition of colleges under section 2(f) & 12B of UGC Act, 1956.
Sir, I am directed to say that the Commission at its meeting held on 4th May, 2010 (Item No. 2.01) considered the issue of providing 12B status to unaided, self- financing colleges under section 12(B) of UGC Act, 1956 and resolved as under:
The Commission noted that self-financing colleges with 12(B) status were receiving all kinds of grants from UGC till the IX Plan and that grants were discontinued to such colleges in the X Plan due to paucity of funds. It was also noted that self-financing colleges were also being given 12(B) status earlier.
The Commission deliberated upon various related issues and decided as under:
1. Government colleges, included under 12(B), shall continue to receive grants from UGC.
2. All private colleges included under 12(B) and receiving salary grant from the State Government shall continue to receive grants from UGC.
3. Partly self-financing private colleges i.e. colleges which may not be receiving grants for salary purpose from the Government but are receiving some kind of grant for any other purpose from the State Government or from any Central Government sources, may be awarded 12(B) status if they fulfill the eligibility criteria and may be considered for financial assistance from UGC subject to availability of funds.
4. Private colleges, which are fully self-financing, may be awarded 12(B) status if they fulfill the eligibility criteria, so that they become eligible to receive Central Government grants from other sources, even if they do not receive grants from UGC due to paucity of funds.
This may also be brought to the notice of all the affiliated colleges of your University.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-V.K.Jaiswal Deputy Secretary"
6
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that classification of the petitioner-college as self-financing college is contrary to the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. For the above purpose, reference is made to Sections- 2 (f) and 12 (B) of the Act as well as Rule - 2 of the (UGC Fitness of Institutions for Grant) Rules, 1975. Sections 2(f) and 12B of the Act are extracted hereunder :-
"2(f) "University" means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act".
"12B. "No grant shall be given by the Central Government, the Commission, or any other organization, receiving any funds from the Central Government, to a University which is established after the commencement of the University Grants Commission (Amendment) Act, 1972 unless the Commission has, after satisfying itself as to such matters as may be prescribed, declared such University to be fit for receiving such grant".
Rule - 2 of the Rules, 1975 reads as follows:-
"2 - Fitness for grant:-
No institution to which these rules apply shall be declared to be fit to receive grants from the Central Government, the Commission or any other Organization receiving any fund from the Central Government unless the Commission is satisfied that the institution:
(i) Provides instruction up to Bachelors degree or up to a post graduate decree only or provides instructions for a diploma course of duration of not less than one academic year and for which the minimum qualification for admission is a Bachelors degree;
(ii) is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or is a body corporate established or incorporated under a Central Act, a provincial Act or a State Act, for the time being in force or is a Trust with 7 Trustees being appointed and vested with legal powers and duties; and
(iii) is permanently affiliated to a University which has been declared fit under section l12B of the University grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) for receiving g rants".
A bare reading of the aforesaid provision of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder clearly shows that there is no concept of a self- financing institution either under the Act or under the Rules.
7. In view of the above resolution, as quoted above, as per the letter dated 14.06.2010, it is found that there is no scope for the UGC to make a discrimination between the unaided private colleges on the ground that such colleges are self-financing private colleges. The concept of a self-financing private college is not envisaged either under the Act or Rules framed thereunder. Moreover, on verifying the purpose of registration of the educational agency under the Societies Registration Act, the same also does not disclose that the petitioner-college can be termed as a self-financing private college.
8. It is needless to mention here that the legal education in the State is not being given any importance, which is required to be given to such education and as a consequence, the teachers teaching in private law colleges in the State, are serving in such colleges on receiving meager amount as salary. Such colleges are not in a position to engage expert faculties, who can give much better legal education to the students of such colleges. At this juncture, it would be profitable to quote the speech delivered by Hon'ble Justice A.S. Anand on 31.1.1998 on the invitation of Sarin Memorial Legal Aid 8 Foundation at Chandigarh. The Hon'ble Judge, as he then was, stated in his speech as follows:-
"The Past.
The concept of legal education in India goes back to the Vedic age when it was essentially based on the concept of Dharma. There is, however, no record of any formal legal education being provided at that time. Training was self-acquired in matters connected with Dharma. The Kings either used to dispense justice themselves or appoint Judges and Assessors to administer justice, not necessarily trained in law but who were known for their righteousness and justness and had the reputation of being fair and impartial.
The pattern of legal education which is in vogue in India today was transplanted by the Britishers after the establishment of English Rule in the country. It was in the year 1857, that a step was taken in the direction of imparting formal legal education in the country. Three universities, set up in the cities of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, formally introduced legal education as a subject for teaching. This was in a way the beginning of the era of legal education in India. At the initial stages, students were free to undertake instructions in other disciplines such as history, geography, science etc. along with law studies. Legal education was introduced in its very rudimentary form with hardly any standards and qualifications prescribed for admission to the law classes. A beginning had, however, been made.
Before India attained independence in 1947, there were only a few schools in the country which taught law. With the independence of the country, legal education acquired importance, as rule of law became a fundamental doctrine for the governance of the country. Since we adopted a democratic form of Government it became necessary that judicial system of the country should be brought in tune with social, economic and political needs of the society. With the changing complex of law and social needs, there was felt a greater need for change and reform in the structure and pattern of legal education. The ethos of legal education was required to undergo a change to fit in with the constitutional philosophy of ushering in the socio-economic transformation of the society. Gradually legal education was introduced as a course of study in a number of States.
The Present 9 Taking note of an urgent need to bring about reforms in the university education generally, Parliament, in exercise of its legislative power under Entry 66 of List I enacted the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 is an Act to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in universities. The UGC is also the authority dealing with the grant of affiliation to the law colleges. The UGC Act provides that it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the universities. Section 12(d) provides that the UGC may recommend to any university necessary measures for improvement of university education and advise the university regarding the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing its recommendations.
The UGC Act did bring about some improvement in the matter of regulation of standards of teaching in the universities generally but much was still left to be done. The decline in standards of legal education and with that the decline in the prestige and image of the legal profession became a cause of concern. Dr Radhakrishnan lamented that "our colleges of law do not hold a place of high esteem either at home or abroad, nor has law become an area of profound scholarship and enlightened research...."
The Law Commission presided over by Shri M.C. Setalvad in its report (14th Report) on "Reform of Judicial Administration", in 1958 while assessing the standards of legal education obtaining in the country said:
"In the period of about ten years which has elapsed since the publication of the Radhakrishnan Commission, the position in regard to legal education in this country has, it appears, definitely deteriorated."
The Law Commission portrayed a rather dismal picture and lamented:
"The portals of our law-teaching institutions - manned by part-time teachers - open even wider and are accessible to any graduate of mediocre ability and indifferent merits.10
hardly a pretence at teaching ... This character is followed by law examinations held by the universities many of which are mere tests of memory and poor ones at that, which the students manage to pass by cramming short summaries published by enterprising publishers. The result, plethora of LL.B. half-baked lawyers, who do not know even the elements of law and who are let loose upon society as drones and parasites in different parts of the country."
9. Keeping in view the above opinion of the learned Judge expressed as early as in the year 1998, if a field study is made, it would be seen that there is no substantial improvement in legal education in the country. The UGC has a direct control over the Law Colleges in our State and it provides funds in different Plans drawn out by it for improvement and making provision of infrastructures in Law Colleges. It has a bounden duty under law as a statutory Commission to provide such grants for improvement of infrastructure for College Library, Hostel etc. and for providing equipments to aid improvement of legal education by adopting all modern technologies.
10. The UGC, on stopping to disburse the development grant to such colleges will add fuel to fire, as it is already found that the grant under the 11th Plan was approved by the UGC to be given to the petitioner-college and the UGC could not have stopped release of such grant abruptly after releasing some amount of the said grant, which were approved by it earlier. The only ground, on which it appears that the UGC has stopped release of such grant is due to paucity of funds, which cannot be accepted to be a valid ground for stopping of release of such grant to the petitioner-college.
11
11. In the result, therefore, we are of the view that it is necessary to issue a writ of mandamus to the UGC directing it to release the balance amount of the 11th Plan grant as well as special grants under the said Plan, which was already approved by it on the proposal submitted by the petitioner-college.
12. We, therefore, allow the writ application by quashing the letters under Annexures - 8 and 12 as well as the decision of the UGC taken on 04.05.2010, which is mentioned in Clauses - 3 and 4 of the letter dated 14.06.2010 as quoted above and direct the UGC to release the balance amount of the approved allocation including the special grant to the petitioner-college within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to the opposite parties 1 and 2.
13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of.
Requisites for communication of this order shall be filed within a week.
12
........................
M.M. Das, J.
C.R.Dash, J. I agree.
........................
C. R. Dash, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
January 29th, 2014/Subha.
13