Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"1. I have perused the letter dated 10th June, 2013 from Shri S.P Sharma, Advocate for CMJ Foundation with reference to the Directives issued by this office vide letter no. GSMG/CMJU/82/2009/311 dated 24th May, 2013. It is observed that the CMJ Foundation/University has moved the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking copies of documents for the purpose of compliance of the Directives, after much delay, on 10th June, 2013 the last date fixed for compliance of the Directives. It thus appears that the CMJ Foundation is not sincere about compliance with the Directives. Moreover, all the Directives that were issued vide this office letter No. GSMG/CMJU/82/2009/143 dated 30th April, 2013 could have been complied by the CMJ Foundation without recourse to the documents seized by the State Police. The Directives issued on 30th April, 2013 are stated below:

(ii) It awarded B.Ed degree through Distance Mode without the requisite approval of the regulatory bodies and without affiliation. The B.Ed degrees awarded by the CMJ University were held to be invalid in the eye of Law by the order dated 24th May, 2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati.

(iii) The Shillong Engineering and Management College was de-affiliated by NEHU from academic session 2011-2012. This College, which was in existence prior to the sanction for establishment of the CMJ University, cannot be affiliated with the CMJ University. While the fate of the students of this College was already uncertain in view of the said deaffiliation, the College continued to make admissions by misleading the students that the degrees will be issued by the CMJ University.

x) The University has violated Section 41(1) of the CMJ University Act relating to establishment of Endowment Fund and indulged in cheating by withdrawing the deposit of Rs.210 lakhs within days of making the deposit.

xi) The University repeatedly acted in contravention of Section 52 of the CMJ University Act 2009 in respect of maintenance of standards and other related matters applicable to private universities.

7. All these established facts clearly indicate mismanagement, mal-administration, indiscipline and failure in the accomplishment of the objectives of the University, apart from criminal liability. In the interest of maintaining proper standards of higher education it would be desirable that the CMJ University be wound up. The state government is accordingly being addressed to consider Dissolution of the CMJ University in terms of Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009." (emphasis supplied) In terms of the recommendations made by the Visitor-cum- Governor, the State Government is required to take action under Section 48 of the 2009 Act.

23. Under Section 14(1) of the said Act of 2009, sponsor shall appoint a person suitable to be appointed as the Chancellor of the University subject to the approval of the Visitor. Therefore, prior approval is not required for appointment of the Chancellor. There is a clear distinction between "prior approval" and "subject to approval". In the case of appointment subject to approval, appointment is good so long it is not disapproved. In the present case, this Court vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2013 passed in WA No.(SH) 16/2013 had already held that there cannot be legal friction of deemed approval of the Chancellor under Section 14 (1) of the said Act of 2009. However, as the appointment of the Chancellor is subject to the approval of the Visitor, the appointment of the Chancellor is good so long it is not disapproved. In the present case, the Trustees of the CMJ Foundation as early as 29.07.2009 had adopted the resolution appointing Shri.Chandra Mohan Jha as Chancellor of the University in terms of Section 14 (1) of the said Act of 2009 and the petitioner No.1 sent the letter dated 03.08.2009 to the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, seeking approval of the Visitor for appointment of the Chancellor i.e. Shri.Chandra Mohan Jha. Several reminders had been sent to the Visitor to approve the appointment of the Chancellor. As the Visitor did not object to the appointment of the Chancellor, the State Govt. issued a Notification dated 17.06.2010, that the Governor of Meghalaya is pleased to accord sanction for the establishment of the CMJ University and the CMJ University had started functioning with Shri.Chandra Mohan Jha as Chancellor. Three years after the said resolution dated 29.07.2009 for appointing Shri.Chandra Mohan Jha as Chancellor, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya under his letter dated 11.04.2013 informed the CMJ University that the appointment of the Chancellor of the University by the CMJ Foundation is irregular, as the said appointment does not have the approval of the Visitor which is mandatory under Section 14 (1) of the said Act of 2009. Where an obligation is cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. The authorities cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of their own fault in failure to act in accordance with law. In the present case, the Visitor, to whom an obligation is cast under Section 14 (1) of the said Act of 2009 to decide as to whether he approves or not the appointment of the Chancellor, was sitting on the matter for three years and he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. The Apex Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors: (2007) 11 SCC 447 held that "the appellant is also right in contending before this Court that the power under Section 32-B of the Act to initiate fresh proceedings could not have been exercised. Admittedly, Section 32-B came on the statute book by Bihar Act 55 of 1982. The case of the appellant was over much prior to the amendment of the Act and insertion of Section 32-B. The appellant, therefore, is right in contending that the authorities cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of their own default in failure to act in accordance with law and initiate fresh proceedings. In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to a decision of this Court in Mrutunjay Pani v. Naramada Bala Sasmal: AIR 1961 SC 1353 wherein it was held by this Court that where an obligation is cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. This is based on the Latin maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of his own wrong)".