IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1014 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9762 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9199 of 2012 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1014 of 2012 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question 4 of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= SHREE MANILAL HARILAL KADAKIYACHARITABLE TRUST THRO -
Appellant(s) Versus VEER NARMAD SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR NAVIN K.PAHWA for M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Appellant(s) : 1, MR DC DAVE, SR.ADVOCATE with MR PA JADEJA for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 8/11/2012 CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) This Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an applicant of a writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge, by which His Lordship admitted the writ-application but refused to grant any interim relief pending the final disposal of the writ-application.
Facts shortly stated be thus :
(1) The appellant – original petitioner is a trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and runs various educational institutions under the name Shri Manilal Kadakiya College of Management and Computer Studies, Shri M.H.Kadakiya Institute of Management and Computer Studies, Smt.Kusumben Kadakiya Arts and Commerce College, Smt.Kusumben Kadakiya Vidyalaya.
(2) The petition is with respect to a B.B.A. and a B.C.A. Course, which is run under Shri Manilal Kadakiya College of Management and Computer Studies.
(3) It is the case of the petitioner that Shri Manilal Kadakiya College of Management and Computer Studies started imparting education in the course of B.B.A. and B.C.A. from the year 2000. However, so far as the course of B.C.A. is concerned, it had stopped admitting students between the year 2004-2007. Both the courses had one division having intake capacity of 60 students each.
(4) The Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, vide communication dated 23rd June 2009, had permitted the appellant to start one another division for the B.B.A. and B.C.A. courses for the academic year 2009-10. The appellant was also informed that in respect of B.C.A. course and B.B.A. course, the intake seats per division was fixed at 45 students for the academic year 2012-13.
(5) The record reveals that vide communication dated 13th June 2012 addressed by the respondent -University to the Incharge Principal of the concerned college of the appellant, it was informed that the University had decided to reduce one division each for the concerned courses offered by the college of the appellant in the discipline of Business Administration and Computer Applications respectively at the level of graduation.
(6) The said decision of the University ordering reduction of one division each for the concerned courses was challenged by the appellant by filing Special Civil Application No.9762 of 2012.
(7) It appears that the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 7th August 2012 issued Rule, making it returnable on 18th September 2012. However, the interim relief prayed for in the writ-application seeking stay of the implementation, operation and execution of the communication dated 13th June 2012 was not granted by the learned Single Judge.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present Appeal has been preferred.
It appears that one of the contentions of the appellant in appeal was that the decision of the University to reduce one division each for the concerned courses was taken without affording any opportunity of hearing to the college. Such being the position, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Jayant Patel and C.L.Soni, JJ.) had passed the following order on 31st August 2012 :
“Since one of the aspects to be considered in this appeal is whether the hearing was required to be given or not, in order to avoid the contention, learned counsel appearing for both the sides are on agreement on the aspect that if the hearing is given and the report is placed before this Court, same would met with ends of justice, more particularly when the last date for acceptance of admission form is extended till 15th September, 2012.
Hence, by interim order, it is directed that the appellant shall be given an opportunity of hearing by the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent University on the aspect of reduction of classes or on the aspect of no permission for opening of new classes and the decision shall be rendered on or before 10th September, 2012 and the same shall be placed on record on 11th September, 2012. Learned Counsel Mr. Dave shall convey the order to the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent University.
Stand Over to 11th September, 2012. Direct Service is permitted.”
Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 31st August 2012, the Vice Chancellor of Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat, had appointed an Inquiry Committee and had also asked the Inquiry Committee to visit the institution and place its report. The management of the college was also duly informed about the appointment of the Committee. The Committee had visited the institution on 5th September 2012 for the purpose of carrying out inspection. However, it is the case of the respondent that the management had restrained the Committee from taking video of the infrastructure facilities available. According to the respondent, the management of the college had not fully cooperated with the Committee. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor gave personal hearing to the appellant on 7th September 2012. After hearing the appellant and after going through the record of the Inquiry Committee, the Vice Chancellor passed the following order, which reads as under :
(1) As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of LPA No.1014 of 2012 with CA No.9199 of 2012 in SCA No.9162 of 2012, the hearing of the said petitioner trust was scheduled on 7.9.2012 at 11:30 am at the Vice Chancellor office.
(2) Before hearing of the said petitioner in order to have fresh first hand information in the matter, I had appointed an inquiry committee to visit the institution. The management was duly informed about the appointment of the committee. The committee visited the institution on 5.9.2012. The management did not allow the committee to have videography of infrastructure available and asked the committee to get the information from the incharge principal. Thus the management cooperated in the matter only partially.
(3) From the record available with the University, the reports of the inquiry committees appointed by the syndicate during last few years, and the report of the inquiry committee mentioned above. The following facts emerge.
During last three years i.e. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 the college was given affiliation for five divisions each (2 each for first year and second year and 1 for the third year) for BBA as well as BCA programmes. During these three years the college had to appoint 9 full time University approved teachers for BBA programme and 9 full time University approved teachers for BCA programme. Against that they had only 3 to 4 full time University approved teachers and three adhoc/visiting teachers for BBA programme and 3 or 4 full time University approved teachers and two adhoc/visiting teachers for BCA programme. Not only that right from the beginning both the colleges are running without Principals, University approved teacher for physical education and University approved librarian.
The syndicate had taken very serious note of these very serious deficiencies related to academic standards and they had resolved to reduce one division each from BBA programme and BCA programme. These deficiencies, as confirmed by the LIC which visited the college on 5.9.2012 still persists and therefore as Vice Chancellor, I do not have any proper reason to alter the decision of the Syndicate, which as per the provision of section 34(3) of University Act, is the authority to take final decision in the matter.
In view of the fact that the Vice Chancellor of the University, after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, passed the order which has been made a subject matter of challenge by way of an amendment in the appeal, we have decided to hear the main writ-application itself instead of adjudicating on the issue, as to whether the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to grant interim relief pending final disposal of the writ-petition.
Mr.Navin Pahwa, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the decision dated 7th September 2012 taken by the Vice Chancellor is unreasonable, unjust, in breach of the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr.Pahwa submitted that considering the report of the Local Inspection Committee, the syndicate had earlier taken a decision on 9th February 2012 to reduce the intake capacity of the students in the second division of both the courses to 45 students each.. According to Mr.Pahwa, the staff position had been more or less same between the two dates and, therefore, it was not open for the Vice Chancellor to take a contrary decision.
Mr.Pahwa also submitted that when the syndicate took the decision on 17th May 2012, it had only taken into consideration the report of LIC/recommendations of Academic Council. The Local Inspection Committee had only mentioned about the requirement to appoint a full time Principal. The syndicate had observed that the college should appoint Lecturers in the vacant posts within a period of one month, failing which, one division would be closed.
According to Mr.Pahwa, the decision of the syndicate was thus subject to appointing the staff. But, perusal of the impugned order would show that there has been a contradictory stand taken by the syndicate.
Mr.Pahwa submitted that even otherwise his client can undertake and conclude the process of appointment of staff within a period of one month from the date his client is permitted to start a second division of both the courses.
It is also submitted by Mr.Pahwa that the appellant, also as an Incharge Principal, and at times due to non-availability of regular and full time teachers, the colleges do appoint adhoc teachers and such practice is prevailing almost in all the institutions and the University has also accepted such a practice. Mr.Pahwa, therefore, urged that the decision to reduce one division each for the concerned courses offered by the college deserves to be set-aside and the college may be permitted to admit the students for the concerned course of Business Administration and Computer Applications respectively.
On the other hand, Mr.D.C.Dave, the learned senior advocate appearing for the University vehemently opposed the prayer made in the petition and submitted that the decision to reduce one division each for the courses of Business Administration and Computer Applications offered by the college of the appellant is based upon the findings recorded by the Local Inspection Committee in its report as well as the recommendations of the Academic Council of the respondent – University. Mr.Dave submitted that the report of the Local Inspection Committee of the respondent – University was considered by the Academic Council of the respondent – University in its meeting dated 14th May 2012 and finally the decision was taken to reduce one division each of the aforesaid courses. According to Mr.Dave, the college, at the time of inspection, had only three to four full time University approved teachers and three adhoc/visiting teachers for B.B.A. programme and three to four full time University approved teachers and two adhoc/visiting teachers for B.C.A. programme. Apart from the above, the colleges are being run without Principals, University approved Teachers for Physical Education as well as University approved Librarian.
Taking into consideration such serious deficiencies relating to the academic standards, the decision has been taken ultimately in the interest of the students. Mr.Dave, therefore, urged that there is no merit in this Appeal as well as the main writ-application and, therefore, the Appeal as well as the writ-application deserve to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is, as to whether the decision taken by the University to reduce one division each for the courses of Business Administration and Computer Applications taking into consideration the deficiencies as reflected from the order dated 7th September 2012, could be said to be unreasonable or in any manner, contrary to law, warranting any interference at the end of this Court.
The present is one such case where the institution established by the appellant had been inspected and several deficiencies that seriously affect its capacity to impart quality education to the students was specifically pointed out.
The fact is that in the last three years i.e. 2009-10, 2010-
11 and 2011-12 the college was given affiliation for five divisions each (two each for first year and second year, and one for third year) for B.B.A. as well as B.C.A. programmes. During these three years, the college had to appoint nine full time University approved teachers for B.B.A. programme and nine full time University approved teachers for B.C.A. programme. It has been conceded before us that the college has not been able to appoint the full time University approved teachers as required under the Regulations. If the college wants to run an additional class, then the college must also have sufficient strength of teachers and that too full time University approved teachers. Such deficiencies have not been disputed before us nor can the same be disputed in the light of the report submitted by the Local Inspection Committee. Such being the state-of-affairs, it could not be said that the decision of the University to reduce one division each for the concerned courses is arbitrary or unreasonable in any manner warranting any interference at our end in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In State of Maharashtra v/s. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, reported in (1992)4 SCC 435, the Supreme Court made the following observation in paragraph 12 :
“The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. The formal education needs proper equipment by the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest technics to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well equipped teacher could bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities of the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast ever changing technics, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges. or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education.”
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the Appeal as well as in the main writ-application, and consequently the Appeal as well as the writ-application stand dismissed.
We, however, clarify that it will be open for the appellant to file a fresh application seeking permission to start another division for both the B.B.A. and B.C.A. courses after taking care of all the deficiencies as pointed out in the order passed by the Vice Chancellor dated 7th September 2012, for the next academic year 2013-14. If such application in accordance with law is preferred by the appellant, then the syndicate of the University may take appropriate decision in that regard in accordance with law and inform about the same to the appellant. If such an application is preferred by the appellant, then the same may be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application and the decision shall also be communicated to the appellant at the earliest.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) /MOIN