Allahabad High Court
Kisan Degree College, Mahua Pakar, ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Higher ... on 21 January, 2010
Author: Pradeep Kant
Bench: Pradeep Kant, R.R. Awasthi
1
Court No. 1.
Writ Petition No. 441 (MB) of 2010
Kisan Degree College, Mahua Pakar, Gaura Chowki,
District Gonda
Vs.
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon'ble R.R. Awasthi, J.
Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondent no.2, notice has been accepted by Dr. Ravi Kumar Misra and notice on behalf of respondent no.3 has been accepted by Sri Vinay Bhushan.
The affiliation to the petitioner institution has been refused on the ground; (1) academic session 2009-10 has been declared Zero Session; and (2) in the absence of any declaration being made by the State Government, the petitioner institution cannot be treated as a minority institution.
Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, assails the plea of the State Government saying that no such declaration is required for treating the petitioner institution as minority institution in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and also in accordance with the judgement of the apex court in the case of N. Ahmad vs. Manager, M.J. High School and others, (1998) 6 SCC 674.
Further argument is that if the State Government in its wisdom does not take the petitioner institution as minority institution, even then it has to consider the case in terms of the rules and simply because the petitioner's claim it to be a minority institution, the affiliation could not have been rejected. His submission is that an interim direction be issued to the State Government to consider the grant of affiliation to the petitioner institution, not treating it to be minority institution, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.
Next submission is that, even if academic session 2009-10 has been declared Zero Session, the affiliation cannot be refused on this ground also, as if the said session treating as Zero Session is upheld, the natural consequence would be that no admissions would be made in that session.
For the purpose of interim direction, he submits that the affiliation could not have been refused on either of the two grounds aforesaid.
We are, prima facie, satisfied that in view of the arguments raised aforesaid, the State Government could not have refused to consider the 2 grant of affiliation on the aforesaid grounds.
We, therefore, provide as an interim measure that the State Government shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of affiliation within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, ignoring the aforesaid two objections, subject to further orders of the Court and without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the writ petition.
Dated: 21.1.2010 Sachin