Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. All these writ petitions have been filed by the management/principal of various degree colleges affiliated to M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly for the following reliefs :

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioners to hold the students union election for the academic Sessions 2004-05 and onwards.

(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Clause (v) of the Ordinance of the University as illegal and ultra vires in view of the judgment of this Court dated 30-9-2003 in Writ Petition No. 43465 of 2003 (reported in 2003 (53) All LR 351).

(b) Whether the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 66-A of the State Universities Act can issue directions requiring the University to frame Ordinance to provide for constitution of students union and election of its office-bearers?

(c) Whether the University under the State Universities Act has competence to frame Ordinances so as to provide for election of the students union in affiliated degree colleges?

(d) Whether the Ordinances framed by the M.J.P. Rohilkhand University enforced with effect from 15-9-2003 in fact provide for constitution of the students union and election of its office-bearers?

(l) the conditions and mode of appointment and the duties of examining bodies, examiners, moderators, invigilators and tabulators;

(m) the conduct of examinationsts;

(n) the remuneration and allowances including travelling and daily allowances to be paid to persons employed on the business of the University;

(o) all other matters which by this Act or the Statutes are to be or may be provided for by the Ordinance.

18. For the purposes of the present case the provisions of Section 51(2) (g) and (o) are relevant. A reading of the aforesaid provisions establishes that the Legislature is aware that the students of the University and the students of affiliated degree colleges are different. Therefore, while providing for discipline of the students of the University under Section 51(2)(g) of the Act no provision has been made for regulating the discipline of the students of affiliated degree colleges. Therefore on a plain reading of Section 51 of the Act it would be apparent that no power has been conferred upon the University to frame any Ordinance regulating the discipline of the students of affiliated degree colleges. A bare, reading of Section 51(g) of the Act would establish beyond doubt that the University has been conferred with the power to frame ordinances for regulating the discipline of the students of the University only. Thus under Section 51(g) of the Act the University cannot frame any ordinance for the purposes of regulating the discipline of the students of affiliated degree colleges. As it agreed between the parties that the provision pertaining to constitution of Students' Union is part and parcel of over all discipline of the students, it is therefore, held that the University under Section 51(g) of the Act cannot frame any ordinance providing for constitution of Students' Union or election of office bearers of Students' Union of affiliated degree colleges. It can frame such ordinances only in respect of the students of the University only. Since the University itself cannot frame ordinance under Section 51(g) of the Act providing for constitution of Students Union in affiliated degree colleges as well as for election of office bearers of the Students' Union in affiliated degree colleges, ,any direction issued by the State Government under Section 66-A of the Act requiring the University to frame ordinance for constitution of Student's Union and election of its office bearers in affiliated degree colleges, on the face of it would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and, therefore is unsustainable.

24. In the opinion of the Court powers and duties of the University under Section 7(15) and 7(17) can only be exercised by framing necessary statutes and therefore the University cannot make provisions in respect of its powers and duties and responsibilities by framing ordinance under Section 51 of the Act. Neither under the Act nor under the statutes a provision has been made for framing of ordinances in that respect. Thus, State Government while issuing Orders dated 1-8-2003: and 8-9-2003 has acted contrary to the provisions: of the Act while requiring the University to frame ordinance providing for constitution of Students' Union and for election of its Office bearers. In such circumstances this Court has no hesitation to hold that the State Government cannot issue Government Order under Section 66-A of the Act directing the University to frame ordinance for constitution of Students' Union and for election of its office bearers so far as affiliated degree colleges are concerned.