Veer Kunwar Singh College v. State Of Bihar — 1996 DIGILAW 45 (PAT)

Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties at length. I dispose of this writ petition by this order at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner No.1 herein is the veer Kunwar Singh College said to be an intermediate College situated in Road No.1, Rajendra Nagar, Patna. The petitioner No.2 Smt. Neelu Singh, wife of Shailesh Kumar singh, claims to be the Secretary of the college. They have filed the instant writ petition for quashing the order of the State government bearing No.194/c dated 23.8.1995 as also the order of the Bihar Intermediate education Council dated 15.9.95, Annexure-14 and the consequential order of cancelletion of recognition, if any, issued. It appears that by the order of the bihar Intermediate Education Council (hereinafter referred to as the council)dated 15.9.95 the proposal made by the council to the Government for granting approval to the recognition of the petitioner no.1-College for two Sessions commencing from academic session 1993-94 has been recalled. The petitioners also pray that a writ of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to interfere with the recognition granted to the petitioner no.1, College by the council by its communication dated 3.12.1993 Annexure-8, which was issued pursuant to the decision of the Council dated 16.7.93. Lastly, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to issue registration certificates in respect of the students sent up by the petitioner-College, and to accept their fees and forms so that they may be able to take the ensuing examination for 1994-95 Sessions. 3. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed. According to the petitioners the college was established by local residents of Patna in the year 1985, and a managing committee was constituted of which petitioners No.2 is the Secretary. It may here be noticed that the husband of the petitioner is a Section Officer in the Bihar intermediate Education Council, and according to the respondents, he is the real moving spirit behind the institution. The College deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- on 17.3.89 with the Council for inspection of the College. It also claims to have deposited between 19th January, 1990 and 30th January, 1990 a further sum of Rs.52,000/- toward the security amount which is required to be deposited. The College deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- on 17.3.89 with the Council for inspection of the College. It also claims to have deposited between 19th January, 1990 and 30th January, 1990 a further sum of Rs.52,000/- toward the security amount which is required to be deposited. It is claimed that by issuance of the letter dated 23.3.90 annexure-3, the Council declared the College as a proposed college in the faculties of Arts, Science and Commerce. Thereafter the petitioner-College started admitting students who were duly sent up, and who took the examination thereafter conducted by the Council. 4. On 27.4.91 vide Annexure-4, an inspecting team was constituted to inspect the College. The case of the petitioners is that the College is being run in a rented permises which has four rooms 16 x 14, two rooms 10 x 12, and five rooms 16 x 18 in dimension. Within a few days of the appointment of the inspecting team, on 2.5.91, the College was inspected and promptly on the 3rd of May, 1991 a favourable report was submitted by the inspecting team to the Education officer of the Council. The report noticed the accommodation available to the College and also the fact that it had entered into an agreement for the purchase of 2 1/2 acres of land for which a sum of Rs.2,50,ooo/- had already been advanced. The inspection report recommended that the College be granted recognition. Thereafter on 11.1.93 the petitioner College deposited a further sum of Rs.50000/- towards security amount. 5. On 16.7.1993, the Council decided to grant recognition to the College for two sessions commencing from the Session 1993-94 subject to Governments approval. Since under the relevant law, recognition can be granted only with the prior approval of the State Government, a proposal was sent to the State Government to accord approval to the decision of the Council. This is contained in the letter issued under the signature of the secretary of the Council dated 3.12.93 which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 6. While the matter relating to the grant of approval was pending before the Government, it appears that on 21.8.95 at 2 P. M. a team of officers consisting of the Secretary to the Council, the Commissioner, Education, and others visited the premises of the college and a surprise inspection was carried out. 6. While the matter relating to the grant of approval was pending before the Government, it appears that on 21.8.95 at 2 P. M. a team of officers consisting of the Secretary to the Council, the Commissioner, Education, and others visited the premises of the college and a surprise inspection was carried out. According to the petitioners, even the Minister for Human Resources and developments was present alongwith the secretary of the Council, though this fact does not appear to be admitted by the respondents. On surprise inspection it was found that the College was locked and there were no students, and the Principal who was present could not get the rooms opened. The inspecting team found that the benches in some of the rooms were stacked one over the other, and it appeared that they had not been used for a considerably long period. Several documents were seized by the inspecting team and they disclosed that the College was being run only on paper, and large number of students were being sent up for taking the Intermediate examination, who were not even bonafide students of the College. The documents revealed that applications were being received from different States, such as the state of Haryana, Gujarat etc, and blank applications with signature were being sent from there for registration of the candidates at Patna. The inspection revealed that the number of students sent up were more in number than the number of students shown admitted by the College, and the results declared were of a larger number. It was suspected that the registration fees collected from large number of cendidates were being embezzled by the college authorities. Though there were two to three thousand students of the College, the space available was sufficient only for 50 students. Several students had appeared at the examinations held, even, though their admit cards had not been issued. A report was therefore lodged with the Police, and a criminal case has been registered against the husband of the petitioner No.2 as well, because he was suspected of being the kingpin of the whole scheme. The petitioner no.2 had been released on bail, and similarly her husband had also to obtain anticipatory bail from this Court. 7. A report was therefore lodged with the Police, and a criminal case has been registered against the husband of the petitioner No.2 as well, because he was suspected of being the kingpin of the whole scheme. The petitioner no.2 had been released on bail, and similarly her husband had also to obtain anticipatory bail from this Court. 7. On 31.7.95 the College claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- by way of fee of students sent up by them, who are expected to take the examination scheduled to be held in February, 1996. The council has not so far issued registration certificates in regard to such sent up students. 8. According to the petitioners, on the basis of a communication issued by the state Government on 23.8.95, the Council has taken action against the College. On 15.9.95 a letter has been written by the secretary of the Council (Annexure-14)wherein it has been stated that the Chairman has passed an order, in anticipation of approval by the Council, to withdraw the recommendation made by the Council for grant of recognition to the College as contained in its earlier communication dated 3.12.93 Annexure-8. It is not disputed that the Act vests in the Chairman power to issue orders in urgent cases in anticipation of approval by the Council. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once recognition is granted to a College, it can be withdrawn only in the manner prescribed by law, and therefore, the unilateral action of the Chairman of the council withdrawing the recognition granted to the Colleges, is illegal. 10. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner No.1 College, was ever granted recognition by the Council in accordance with the Act. The bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992 provides for the establishment of the council and the manner in which it is required to carry out its functions. Sec.41 of the Act provides that no institution imparting Intermediate education shall be established or run unless prior approval of the council has been obtained for the purpose. Sub-section 4 of Sec.41 contains the prohibition that institutions other than the recognised institutions imparting Intermediate Education, shall not send up students in the examinations conducted by the bihar Intermediate Education Council. The council may give approval for the establishment of an institution imparting Intermediate Education having regard to conditions prescribed by the Council. Sub-section 4 of Sec.41 contains the prohibition that institutions other than the recognised institutions imparting Intermediate Education, shall not send up students in the examinations conducted by the bihar Intermediate Education Council. The council may give approval for the establishment of an institution imparting Intermediate Education having regard to conditions prescribed by the Council. Subsection 7 of Sec.41 lays down the guidelines for grant of recognition to an Institution which may be granted by the council with the prior approval of the government. Sub-section 7 (b) of Sec.41 also provides that if the Council refuses to grant recognition to any institution imparting education of intermediate standard, any person or institution dis-satisfied with the decision may appeal to the State Government within 30 days, and the decision of the State Government shall be final. 11. The provisions of the Act make a clear distinction between the recognition of an institution, and premission to establish an institution. For establishing an institution prior approval of the Council has to be obtained, but for the grant of recognition, the council has to seek prior approval of the state Government before granting recognition. For the grant of permission to establish an institution, guidelines have been laid down under the rules and the Council is required to examine all applications for grant of such permission by reference to the guidelines laid down in the rules. In the light of these legal provisions, if one examines annexure-3 dated 23.3.90, it would be apparent that the Council had only declared the College as a proposed college, meaning thereby that permission was granted to the applicant to establish the college. That did not amount to grant of recognition. However, it is urged that the communication issued by the Secretary of the Council on 3.12.93 in the light of the decision of the Council dated 16.7.93 amounted to the grant of recognition. The submission must be rejected. Annexure-8 is in clear terms and permits of no ambiguity. The communication, Annexure-8, is addressed by the secretary of the Council to the Director, Secondary Education, Human resources Development Department, government of Bihar, and the subject mentioned is grant of recognition to Intermediate College. The letter begins with the statement that under section 15 (1) (b) of the Act the Intermediate Council can grant recognition to a College only with the prior approval of the State Government. The letter begins with the statement that under section 15 (1) (b) of the Act the Intermediate Council can grant recognition to a College only with the prior approval of the State Government. The letter proceeds to State that the Council in its meeting held on 16.7.93 had taken a decision to grant recognition to the said college for two Sessions beginning with the session 1993-94 in the faculties of Arts, science and Commerce. The last sentence of the letter contains a request of the Council to the Director to obtain the approval of the State Government and to inform the council accordingly. 12. To my mind the letter is quite clearly a letter seeking approval of the State government, which the Council is required to obtain before granting recognition to a college. The letter in so many words mention the fact that the Council cannot grant recognition without the approval of the state Government and through this letter such approval has been sought. Annexure8 therefore, cannot be said to be a decision of the Council granting recognition to the petitioner No.1 College. In fact without the prior approval of the State Government, the council could not in law grant recognition to an Intermediate College. 13. Once it is held that the College was never granted recognition by the Intermediate council, the submission that the order of recognition could be modified or withdrawn only after following the procedure laid down in Sec.42 of the Act and sub-Rules 18 to 20 of Rule 7 and other provisions of the Rules must be rejected as the same does not survive for consideration. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner college was never recognised by the Council as an intermediate College, and therefore, question of withdrawing such recognition never arose. The Council only withdraw its proposal, earlier made, seeking approval of the State Government, and that the Council was within its right to do, having regard to the facts subsequently discovered. In any event, the withdrawal of the recommendation at best may amount to the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner-College, which may be appealable under Sec.41 of the Act. However, it is not necessary for me to express any concluded opinion on the maintainability of the appeal till the Council communicates its formal decision to the College. 14. In any event, the withdrawal of the recommendation at best may amount to the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner-College, which may be appealable under Sec.41 of the Act. However, it is not necessary for me to express any concluded opinion on the maintainability of the appeal till the Council communicates its formal decision to the College. 14. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in the matter of grant of recognition, one of the factors to be kept in mind is the number of students admitted to the college, He, therefore, submitted that logically it must follow that the students who have been admitted to the College must be permitted to fill up their forms and take the examination conducted by the Council. As have observed earlier, permission to establish an institution is different from the grant of recognition to an institution. The procedure prescribed for making an application for permission to establish an Institution lays down the manner in which such application has to be made, and in terms provides that the applications for permission shall be made in prescribed form with prescribed fee at least six months prior to the commencement of the concerned Session. Rule 4 therefore contemplates that within this period the Council may be able to grant or refuse recognition. The provisions of the Act are quite clear, and section 41 (4) in clear terms lays down that institution other than recognised institution imparting Intermediate Education shall not sent up students in the examination conducted by the council. Since the Act makes a clear distinction between a recognised institution and a proposed College, which is the common name given to a College permitted to be established, the distinction cannot be obliterated by giving it a meaning which permits of no distinction between the two. The scheme of the law is that permission must first be sought well in advance before the commencement of the session, so that in the meantime recognition may be granted or refused. The fact that the Intermediate Council has not been acting promptly, will not compel this Court to give the law couched in clear terms, a meaning different from what appears to be the simple meaning to those words. The fact that the Intermediate Council has not been acting promptly, will not compel this Court to give the law couched in clear terms, a meaning different from what appears to be the simple meaning to those words. It was submitted by the Additional Advocate General II appearing on behalf of the Intermediate council, that such students may appear as private candidates in accordance with the regulations framed by the Council. The submission must, therefore, be rejected. 15. Coming to the last prayer in the writ petition, namely, that this Court may direct the respondents to issue registration certificate in respect of the sent-up students of the College and accept their fees and forms and allow them to appear at the examination for the 1994-96 Sessions, the said prayer cannot be granted, having regard to the law well settled by a series of decisions of this Court and of the Supreme court, it is not necessary for me to refer to each one of them, but I may only observe that as early as in AIR 1954 Patna 486, a division Bench of this Court had taken the view that if affiliation was not granted by the proper authority under the Act, no relief could be granted to the students who had managed to get admit cards for taking the examination on the basis that they were admitted students of an affiliated college. In 1992. (1) B. L. J.712 : 1992 (2) PLJR 321 a division Bench decision of this Court, after an exhaustive consideration of the various decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court held, that in the case of unrecognised institutions, the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction will not grant any direction to the State to permit students of unrecognised institutions to appear at the examination or to declare the result. The learned judges have referred to several decisions of this Court and of the Supreme court including AIR 1986 SC 1490 , A. P. Christian medical Educational Society V/s. Government of andhra Pradesh and another air 1986 SC 1188 , Nageshwaramma V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and another; air 1986 SC 1188 ; 1991 (3)SCC 87 , State of Tamil Nadu and others v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and anotherf 1989 PLJR 916, Arya Prathmik Sikshak shikaha Ma ha Vidyalaya V/s. The State of Bihar and others; 1991 (1)PLJR 595 (FB) : 1991 (1) BLJ 498 (FB), rehmania Primary Teachers Training College V/s. The State of Bihar and others. The following passage from the judgment of the Supreme court in Faridi primary Teachers College case is very significant : "to achieve their objective, it has become part of the modus operandi of the promoters of such institutions to wait till the fag end of the academic year and then approach the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution, either by themselves or through the students to project the plight of the misguided students and seek directions of the court to permit the students to appear at the university or the Board examinations in order to thereby indirectly achieve their objective of running of the institutions without obtaining the requisite permission from the authorities concerned. The resort to such tactics has been strongly depracated by this Court in A. R christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A. R (1986 (2) SCC 557-678) and the reasons for the Court declining to the students is worded in the following manner : "shri K. K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the students who have been admited into the MBBS course of this institution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permited to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstances that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. . . . . Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the university to protect the interest of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear tranagression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws. " 16. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws. " 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioners, and this writ petition must be dismissed. 17. Before parting with the Judgment, am tempted to say a few words which have special significance to the State of Bihar. The ingenuity of the traders in education coupled with the callousness of the authorities that be, have brought about a situation in the State where education has no meaning. The entire paraphernalia of having numerous Universities, hundreds of colleges and schools, thousands of teachers and other staff members, is nothing but a show that a system of education exists in the State. The reality is otherwise, and the huge expense incurred by the State on the maintenance of such institutions is sheer waste of public money. Many of such institutions exist only on paper, and most of those that exist, cannot qualify for being called a school or college. It is difficult to say who is to blame, but what is certainly obvious is the fact that the greatest cantributories to this state of affairs are the callous authorities of the State, and the ingenuous but unscrupulous dealers in education, justifying Justice Krishna Iyers observation that education is reckless business. 18. Education has become a business and interestingly those in the business are commonly referred to as the education mafia. If the facts disclosed in this case are really found to be true, much value cannot be attached to the degrees awarded by the council. What indeed is surprising is the fact that a Section Officer working in the bihar Intermediate Education Council can manipulate things to such an extent that the whole scheme of education is reduced to a farce. The petitioner No.2, Secretary of the college, is only a name-lender, and but for the callous attitudes of the Officers of the council, such a fraud could not have been perpetrated. Apart from the husband of the petitioner No.2 there may be many others in the Council who have skeletons in their cup-boards. The petitioner No.2, Secretary of the college, is only a name-lender, and but for the callous attitudes of the Officers of the council, such a fraud could not have been perpetrated. Apart from the husband of the petitioner No.2 there may be many others in the Council who have skeletons in their cup-boards. That must be discovered by the Council, if it has to establish itself as a genuine Council charged with the duty of imparting standard intermediate education. The Council must now awaken from its deep slumber and must see to it that the act and Rules are strictly complied with by all concerned and its action carry credibility. Cousel for the petitioner may be justified in saying that not only the petitioners institution, but large number of other institution which have not been granted recognition, are sending up students in the normal way and such students are being permitted to take the examination conducted by the council. This is being done without the institutions having recognition, as contemplated by the Act and in many cases such permission has been granted on the basis of decision taken by the Council, and sometimes, on the recommendation of the government. Thp law in clear terms provides that no institution other than a recognised institution can send up students for taking the examinations conducted by the Council. The prohibition is mandatory, and necessarily no other institution can send up candidates for taking the examinations conducted by the Council. If they are being allowed to send up such students, the Council is remiss in the performance of its statutory obligations. At this stage, I may only caution the authorities of the Council that this cannot be permitted to go on indefinitely. The Council is therefore, directed to institute an enquiry and submit a report to this Court, within six months from today, as to the number of application made in the last five years for grant of permission to establish an Intermediate College, the number of applications granted, together with relevant particulars as to the date of filing of such applications and the date of grant of permission. It should also state the number of recommendations made by it to the government for grant of recognition with relevant particulars as to the date on which applications were made for grant of recognition and the date on which the matter was referred to the Government. The Council and the State Government must inform this court as to how many matters are pending before it for grant of approval and for how many years, and if there is delay in such matters the reasons therefor. This has become necessary because it the authorities are not reminded of their statutory obligations, the interest of large number of students of the State is bound of suffer, and on the other hand unscruplous traders in education will continue to enjoy prosperity as they have been doing till today. It must be remembered that once the privillege of sending up its students, without recognition, is granted, the Institution is no-longer interested in the formal grant of recognition because they may entail fulfilment of conditions laid down by the Act. This is one reason why such matters may have been kept pending, deliberately, even by the colleges concerned. This writ petition is dismissed.