Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1665 (ALL)

Himalay Ayurvedi Medical College v. Chancellor

2003-07-28

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI

body2003
M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application for review/recall of our judgment dated 13. 05. 2003. ( 2 ) IT has been stated in the application that the Court did not considered various submission of the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment. We do not agree. ( 3 ) IT has been clearly stated in the aforesaid judgment dated 13. 05. 2003 that the petitioner was granted affiliation to the Kanpur University only from 01. 07. 1996 to 30. 06. 1998. ( 4 ) IT has been contended that an interim order was passed in this case on 11. 09. 2002 that the students of the petitioner no. 1 shall be permitted to appear in the examination and their result will be declared. Against that interim order an SLP has been dismissed by the supreme Court. ( 5 ) IN our opinion and appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. The interim order dated 11. 09. 2002 automatically came to an end when the judgment dated 13. 05. 2003 was passed. Hence the petitioner cannot derive and any benefit from the fact that the SLP against the interim order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. ( 6 ) IT is not for this Court to grant affiliation. The relevant authority under the U. P. State Universities Act grant affiliation and this Court cannot usurp the power of the said authority. ( 7 ) WE have already mentioned in our judgment that merely because affiliation was granted to other institutions, some with retrospective effect, this does not mean affiliation should also be granted to the petitioner Each, institution has to be considered separately by the concerned authority and not by this court in the matter of grant of affiliation. ( 8 ) NO Doubt we have held in committee of Management v. Chancellor in Writ Petition No. (M/b) 5881 of 2002 decided on 11. 11. 2002 by the Lucknow bench of this Court that either permanent affiliation should be granted or the application for affiliation should be rejected, but grant of temporary or provisional affiliation is not legal. This however, does not improve the case of the petitioner in any way. It is not for this court to grant affiliation, as that the function of the concerned authority under the Act. This however, does not improve the case of the petitioner in any way. It is not for this court to grant affiliation, as that the function of the concerned authority under the Act. ( 9 ) IT was entirely the petitioners fault that it admitted students or continued them before 01. 07. 1996 and after 30. 06. 1998. In State of Tamil Nadu V. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute, 1991 (3) SCC 87 the Supreme Court observed vide paragraph 6:- "6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorized education institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. In n. M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A. P. this Court observed that if permission was granted to the students of an unrecognized institutions to appear at the examinations, it would amount to encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorized institutions. The court declared that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article32 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be frittered away for such a purpose. In A. P. Christians Medical educational Society v. Government of a. P. a similar request made of behalf of the institution and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been. granted, was rejected by this court. The Court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognized would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Court cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognized institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the students of unrecognized institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. " ( 10 ) IN Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and others 1992 (4) SCC 401the Supreme Court observed:- "we are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The court should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions. " ( 11 ) THERE is no force in this petitioner and it is rejected. . .