Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 801 (PAT)

Neelam Mundu v. Vice-chancellor M. U.

2005-09-06

REKHA KUMARI

body2005
Judgment 1. The petitioner Secretary, Students Union, Indian Institute of Health Education and Research, Beur, Patna (Institute for short) has filed this writ application for quashing letter no. Ms/Res/102/04 dated 20.10.2004 of the Member Secretary, MDE Exam. Cell, M.U., Bodh Gaya (Annexure 9) by which the University has postponed the examination of the courses to be conducted by the Institute and for directing the respondents to hold examination of those courses and to regularise the academic session. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Institute is being run by the Voluntary Organization known as Manav Manavi Samaj Kalyan Kendra, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Under the Government of Bihar, Health and Medical Education Memo No. 1/Ps-28/92, 48 T/S dated 1.11.1995 the Institute was duly recognized. The State Government through its letter No. 10/v-1067/92 S.K. dated 29.7.1995 to the Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India, New Delhi, granted permission to the institute to conduct degree courses in (1) Prosthetic and Orthotic Engineering, (2) hearing and Speech Therapy, (3) Mental etardation, (4) Occupational Therapy and (5) Physiotherapy, and it has further been recommended by the State Government to the Secretary of RCI to grant recognition to the Institute in the aforesaid disciplines. The Affiliation Committee and the Academic Council of M.U. in its meeting held on 4.4.2003 and 10.4.2003 also accorded affiliation to the Institute in the above cegree course and also one year abridged degree courses in the above disciplines irom the Session 2000-2001 to 2004-2005. The senate of the University in its meeting dated 23.10.2003 also granted extension of affiliation for the Session from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 in the above courses and also made recommendation to the State Government for new registration/affiliation of one year abridged courses in all the above disciplines. Subsequently, a letter was issued on 18.9.2004 by the University that the examination of the above courses would commence from 27th October, 2004 and the last date of submissions of fees and forms were indicated as 6th October, 2004 and 11th October, 2004. The students accordingly submitted their registration and examination fees in time. The Controller of Examination. M.U. issued notification dated 30.9.2004 regarding detailed programme of examination commencing from 27th October, 2004. 3. The students accordingly submitted their registration and examination fees in time. The Controller of Examination. M.U. issued notification dated 30.9.2004 regarding detailed programme of examination commencing from 27th October, 2004. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after accepting the requisite registration and examination fees and notifying the commencement of the date of examination the University by the impugned letter postponed the examination of ail the courses without assigning any cogent reason. 4. One Sanjay Kumar and four other students of the Institute have also filed an intervention petition to issue direction to the University to make arrangement for holding the pending examinations immediately. 5. The respondent Member Secretary, Technical Cell of M.U., has filed a counter affidavit. He has not disputed the averments made in the writ petition. He has further stated that the University was eager to conduct all the examinations of the Institute but in July, 2004 the University received a letter from the Chancellor, directing that examinations of those Colleges should not be conducted which cither do not have affiliation of the University, approved by the Government or whose application for extension is pending at the Govt level. The University hence informed that as the Institute is not at present affiliated it has sent status report to the Chancellor in respect of holding different examinations of the Institute. His case further is that the University has wrongly asserted that the Institute has not been granted affiliation. The Institute has already obtained the approval from the State Governmerit vide letter dated 29.7.1995 (Annexure 3 of the writ petition). It is also the case of this respondent that the letters dated 20.7.2004 and 20.8.2004 of the Governors Secretariat postponing the examination on the basis of a news item are not applicable in the matter of the Institute and that the examinations of the general Colleges whose matter regarding permanent affiliation have been recommended by the University and the examination of those Colleges whose proposals are pending before the University are being held, but in the matter of the Institute discriminatory attitude has been adopted by the University. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor, M.U. and others (respondents no. 1 to 4). Their case is that the affiliation of an Institute can be granted or extended only with the prior approval of the State Government. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor, M.U. and others (respondents no. 1 to 4). Their case is that the affiliation of an Institute can be granted or extended only with the prior approval of the State Government. The Institute was granted affiliation till Session 1998- 1999 and the same has not been extended thereafter by the State Government. The Affiliation Committee and the Academic Council of the M.U. had considered the case of extension of affiliation of the Institute and recommended for extending affiliation till the Session 2004-2005. The same was approved by the Senate in its meeting on 23. 10.2003 and approval was sent to the State Government vide letter No. 45/G-IIIA dated 17.9.2004 for its approval. Their case also is that as the Senate of the University had granted its approval for extension of affiliation for the Session 2004-2005, the Examination Board of the University in its meeting dated 12.8.2004 had resolved to conduct the examination of the aforesaid Institute and accordingly, the fees and forms of the examinees were accepted and the examination programmes were announced; but before commencement of the examination the University received letter No. M. 37/2004-74/GS dated 20.8.2004 of the Chancellor regarding non-affiliated Colleges and considering the letter in its meeting dated 20.10.2004 reviewed the situation and solved to send a report about the Institut and seek direction of the Chancellor ani accordingly, a letter No. CE/Res/16/04 datei 20.10.2004 was sent to the Chancellor bi no direction of the Chancellor has yet beei received. 7. The contention of the Universit hence is that as the State Government ha; not granted its approval for extension of af filiation of the Institute and since the Chan cellor has not sent his guidance, the Univer sity is unable to conduct the examination 8. The petitioner in reply to the above counter affidavit of the University ha: stated, inter alia, that as the University wit! the final approval of the Senate has ex- tended the affiliation, the approval of the State Government is not necessary as the prior approval of the Government has al- ready been obtained vide Annexure 3 of the writ petition. She has further stated that the direction of the Chancellor stopping the examinations was meant for general degree Colleges and not for this Institute. 9. Respondent no. 7, Addl. She has further stated that the direction of the Chancellor stopping the examinations was meant for general degree Colleges and not for this Institute. 9. Respondent no. 7, Addl. Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, has fifed counter affidavit contending, intei alia, that the Registrar, M.U., vide his letter dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure 1 of the writ petition) had requested the State Govern- ment to send consent for extension of affiliation granted earlier by the University and to start one year abridged course in all subjects and in the light of the aforesaid request, the Institute was inspected by an Expert Committee constituted by the De- partment of Health (M.E. and I.M.) and the inspection report has been received which is in process of scrutiny and after proper verification and analysis of the materials mentioned in his inspection report the State Government will take the final decision. 10. It is, thus, an admitted position that the above Institute is being run by a registered Voluntary Organization known as Manav Manavi Samaj Kalyan Kendra and the Department of Health has permitted the reInstitute to conduct degree courses in the subjects mentioned above and that the M.U., Bodh Gaya, has extended the affiliation of the Institute for the above courses til! Session 2004-2005. It is also admitted that the Examination Board of the University had resolved to conduct the examination for the Sessions 1999-2000 to 20012002 (vide Annexure 8 of the writ petition) and accepted the fees and forms and announced the programme of examination which was to commence from 27th October, 2004 but before commencement of the examination in view of a letter dated 20.8.2004 of the Chancellor (Annexure A of the counter affidavit of the University) on the direction of the University the examinations were postponed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier also in the year 2000 the respondent authorities had put such hurdle before the students as a result of which a writ application bearing CWJC No. 6088/2000 was filed in this Court and this Court had given direction to the respondents to hold examination for the courses conducted by the Institute. He further stated that as in the Times of India dated July 20, 2004 (Annexure X of the counter affidavit of respondent no. He further stated that as in the Times of India dated July 20, 2004 (Annexure X of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 6) there was news item regarding scam in the University, the Chancellor had given direction to the Vice-Chancellor (vide Annexure X/2) to stop evaluation of the answer sheet and other directions in respect of Degree I Examinations of 2004. The direction of the Chancellor was not meant for the Institute and that as prior approval of the Government has already been obtained vide Annexure 3, there is no need of any fresh affiliation. 12. Learned counsel for the University contended that for grant of affiliation of an Institute the consent of the State Government is imperative and in case of Institute the State Government had approved affiliation till 1998-1999 and thereafter there has been no extension of affiliation by the Government. He further contended that the students of an unaffiliated Institute cannot appear in examination and that even on humanetarian ground the authorities cannot be directed to hold examination for the students of such Institutions. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute, reported in (1991)3 SCC 87 and the decision of this High Court in the case of Sanjay Gandhi Polytechnic, Madhubani and Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1999(2) PLJR 546. 13. It is not disputed by the petitioner that prior approval of the State Government was necessary for affiliation of the Institute. The case of the University is that though the State Government has granted its approval for affiliation till Sessions 1998- 1999, there has been no extension thereafter by the Government. The petitioner has not filed any letter to show that such extension was made by the Government. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that in view of Annexure 3 of the writ petition, there is no necessity for extension of affiliation. But the annexure shows that through that letter the permission of the Government to conduct degree courses of the above courses by the Institute was conveyed and the above voluntary Organization was advised to enter into correspondence with the Vice-Chancellor of the University for affiliation of the Institute. But the annexure shows that through that letter the permission of the Government to conduct degree courses of the above courses by the Institute was conveyed and the above voluntary Organization was advised to enter into correspondence with the Vice-Chancellor of the University for affiliation of the Institute. Therefore, on the basis of this annexure, it cannot be said that the extension of affillation was not required in the case of the Institute. Hence, it is evident that there was no approval of the Government to extend the affiliation of the Institute beyond 1998-1999. 14. Then as regards the contention of the petitioner that the order of the Chancellor postponing holding of examination was meant only for general degree Colleges and not meant for the Institute, the news item dated 20.7.2004 "Yet another scam in M.U. in examination department" (Annexure X of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 6) shows that it related to non-affiliated Colleges, ft has also already been shown that though the institute was affiliated earlier it was not affiliated on the above date. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the Chancellor postponing the examination which was based on the above news item was not meant for the Institute. So, it cannot be said that the University misunderstood the order of the Chancellor and wrongly postponed the examination of the Institute. 15. The position, hence, that emerges is that on account of non-affiliation of the Institution by the Government the examination of the Institute were postponed by the order of the Chancellor. 16. In the case of St. Joseph Teachers Training School (supra) the Full Bench of the Madras High Court after elaborate discussions had held that in the absence of recognition accorded to an educational institution, the students of the institutions were not entitled to appear at the public examination held by the Government. The High Court, however, on humanetarian ground allowed the students of the concerned unrecognized institutions to appear at the examinations with the condition that declaration of their result would be subject to ultimate settlement of the question of recognition. On appeal against the order of the High Court the Supreme Court observed that the Full Bench rightly held that the students of unrecognized education could not be permitted to appear at the public examination held by the Government. On appeal against the order of the High Court the Supreme Court observed that the Full Bench rightly held that the students of unrecognized education could not be permitted to appear at the public examination held by the Government. It further held that the High Court acted illegally in issuing direction to the Government and the Education Department on humanetarian ground to hold supplementary examination for enabling such students to appear in the examination and added that such direction is distructive of rule of law. 17. In the case of Sanjay Gandhi Polytechnic, Madhepura & Ors. (supra) this Court held that no student should be admitted in technical Institute which is not affiliated because the students of unaffiliated Institutions are not entitled to appear in the examination. 18. Hence, in view of the above decisions holding that the students of unaffiliated Institutions are not entitled to appear in the examination and as the Institute is unaffiliated since after the Session 1998-1999 and as the matter of affiliation of the Institute by the State Government is at a very advanced stage, I think before holding of the examinations the State Government may be directed to finalise the matter of extension of affiliation with promptitude. 19. Accordingly, the State of Bihar (respondent No. 7) is hereby directed to finalise the matter of extension of affiliation of the Institute and convey its decision to the University within one month from this order It is further ordered that if the decision of the State Government goes in favour of the Institute the University (respondents no. 1 to 4) would hold the examinations which were postponed within three months of the receipt of the decision of the State Government and regularise the sessions. 20. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.