Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) What is the relief to be given to the petitioner colleges?

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) case before this Court Before taking up points for consideration, it is most appropriate to advert to and analyse the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Secretary, Society for Common Cause v Secretary, A.P. State Council for Higher Education (W.P.No.12340 of 2003 dated 07.01.2004, hereafter called, the PIL case).

Society for Common Cause filed Writ Petition No.12340 of 2003 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the action of State Council and the University in continuing to grant recognition/affiliation to respondents 3 to 7 herein namely, Sri Krishna Chaitanya Degree College, Rao's Degree College, Vivekananda Degree College, Jagan's Degree College and Lendy Degree College, in spite of violation of Higher Education Rules and the orders in G.O.Rt.No.1623 dated 12.10.1990 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. A consequential direction was also sought directing due compliance of minimum requirements for establishment recognition and affiliation of colleges as per the statutory rules and executive orders.

University and other respondents filed counter affidavits after receiving notices from this Court, wherein it was stated that after receiving representation dated 12.04.2003 from a social worker and Member of Lok Adalat namely, Sri D. Mastan Reddy, University deputed Inspection Commissions to all the colleges. It was stated that colleges which have completed five years, are being run in rented accommodation and therefore University is taking necessary steps to issue notices to those colleges. For other colleges, which did not complete five years, notices were being sent to start construction of own buildings and complete before the closure of academic year 2004-05. The Inspection Commissions submitted reports in respect of colleges in Chittoor, Kadapa and Nellore Districts at the time of grant of affiliation for the academic year 2003-04. The recognition was subject to fulfilling all the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Commissions before the closure of admissions for the academic year 2003-04 i.e.31.07.2003. It was also stated before the Court that while granting extension of temporary conditional affiliation to the existing courses, the affiliated colleges are requested to comply with conditions stipulated by the Inspection Commission and in case there is default, the colleges will not be granted affiliation for future years nor would be permitted to make admissions during the subsequent academic years. The Division Bench considered the matter with due regard to various averments made in the counter affidavit of the University and respondent colleges therein and disposed of the PIL case ordering as follows:

The upshot of above discussion is as follows. A private educational institution has to obtain permission under Section 20 of the Education Act read with Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Higher Education Rules from State Council. Such permission has to be obtained by making an application in Form I. At that stage, there is no necessity to give particulars of infrastructure owned by the educational agency. It is sufficient if particulars of facilities available are mentioned in the application. In the second stage, an educational agency, which is permitted to open/establish a private college has to apply to the University for affiliation/recognition. The application has to be made for affiliation in Form III along with a declaration that such agency would construct own building within a period five years. The University has to grant temporary affiliation under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Higher Education Rules subject to condition that the institution would acquire its own building within a period of five years. However, in a deserving case, the University may, by order in writing, relax this condition and permit granting temporary affiliation to a private educational institution even if such college is being run in a rented building upto a period of ten years. In any case, it is not open nor it is competent to the University to grant temporary affiliation beyond the period of ten years. Every college, which has completed five years of its existence with temporary affiliation and owns building, has to apply for permanent affiliation and obtain such affiliation as per Rule 10 of the Higher Education Rules. Reading Rule 9(2)(b) of the Higher Education Rules and Section 21 of the Education Act together, it is not possible to accept any submission that University granted relaxation to all the petitioner colleges to continue on temporary affiliation. Therefore, it is doubtful whether various orders issued by the University to the petitioner colleges after completion of five years are legally sustainable. Prima facie, the action of the University in extending temporary affiliation to the petitioner colleges beyond five years is unauthorised, illegal, especially when there is no specific order in writing relaxing the Rule 9(2)(b) of the Higher Education Rules in favour of petitioner colleges. This aspect of the matter has to be enquired into by the Government to fix responsibility for such illegal action of the University authorities. The submission that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in PIL case has no application to the petitioner colleges is to be noticed only for the purpose of rejecting the same. It cannot be denied that the petitioner colleges do not satisfy the provisions of the Education Act and Higher Education Rules to be entitled to continue after a period of five years with temporary affiliation. In passing the impugned order, not extending conditional temporary affiliation, the University has acted strictly in accordance with the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in PIL case. Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered accordingly.

(2) The Government may give directions to any educational institution or tutorial institution as to the giving effect to any of the provisions contained in this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder and the manager or owner, as the case may be, of such institution shall comply with every such direction.

Section 92 of the Education Act confers plenary power on the Government (i) to direct the Director or the District Educational Officer to make an enquiry or to take appropriate proceedings under the Act in respect of any matter specified in the order; and (ii) to take appropriate action after receiving the enquiry report. The power of the Government to order enquiry is a broad power and there is nothing in the Universities Act or the University Grants Commission Act which curtails or prevent exercise of such power under Section 92 of the Education Act. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Government should order an enquiry by a Committee consisting of Principal Secretaries of the Departments of Higher Education, Technical Education and Chairman of A.P. State Council of Higher Education. Such enquiry shall have to be with reference to the granting of temporary affiliations by the University ignoring the provisions of law and with reference to fixing responsibility on those officers and authorities of the University which compelled this Court to deprecate the actions of the university. The University shall forthwith initiate action against all affiliated colleges keeping in view observations in the judgment in PIL case and in this judgment.