Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1968 (PNJ)

Ct Group Of Institutions v. State Of Punjab

2007-11-13

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment , J. 1. This petition questions the validity of the order dated 20.2.2007. Annexure P. 15 passed by respondent No. 2 University, imposing penalty of Rs. 4 lacs on the ground that the petitioner College filled up management quota seats without permission of the University. 2. Case of the petitioner is that as per notification dated 13.4.2006, Annexure P.1, the State of Punjab appointed Panjab University, Chandigarh as the authority to conduct Entrance Test for selection of students for admission to B.Ed. course for the session 2006-07 in the colleges affiliated to the Guru Nanak Dev University, Punjabi University and Panjab University. As per the said notification, name of the petitioner-College was shown at Sr. No. 5 for 100 seats. Clause 9 of the Notification provided for 15% of the State quota seats to be treated as management quota seats, which were out of the purview of centralised counselling. The said seats were accordingly excluded from the centralised counselling. The co-ordinator for the Centralised admissions respondent No. 5 raised certain issues and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lac vide letter dated 4.9.2006, Annexure P. 6 on the allegation that the petitioner had not appointed the requisite staff. The petitioner paid the penalty and made a claim vide letter dated 25.10.2006, Annexure P. 9 that it had filled up 13 seats of management quota. The petitioner submitted University examination forms of the students admitted. On 20.2.2007, vide Annexure P. 15. Respondent No. 5 passed the impugned order requiring the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs. 4 lacs and deposit the total fee of 13 students i.e. Rs. 4,55,000/-. 3. The contention raised is that the petitioner-college having never been asked to take `No Objection Certificate before admitting the students under management quota, the penalty could not be imposed. The University had been duly informed about the filling up of 13 seats under management quota and observation in the impugned order that the seats had been filled up without prior permission, was erroneous. 4. In the reply filed by the University, stand taken is that obtaining of NOC from the University was the condition precedent for filling up management quota seats as per notification Annexure P.1 read with corrigendum dated 11.8.2006, procedure for tilling up management quota seats was also laid down i.e. by conducting an entrance test. 4. In the reply filed by the University, stand taken is that obtaining of NOC from the University was the condition precedent for filling up management quota seats as per notification Annexure P.1 read with corrigendum dated 11.8.2006, procedure for tilling up management quota seats was also laid down i.e. by conducting an entrance test. Further corrigendum dated 19.8.2006 was issued requiring No Due Certificate from the affiliating University and further requiring the affiliating University to publish list of management quota seats. The corrigendum dated 1 1.3.2006 to the extent relevant is an under "a) Each institute duly authorised by the University conducting the counselling shall publish an advertisement in two leading newspapers (i.e. One in English and one in Punjabi Language). b) The Management of the institute will fill up management quota seats on the basis of the merit of the Entrance Test through own counselling in transparent manner atleast two days before the start of second counselling by the Pan jab University, Chandigarh. The Management of the institute shall report to the Panjab University. Chandigarh regarding unfilled management quota seats before the start of the second counselling and those unfilled management quota seats will be filled up through main counselling to be conducted by Panjab University, Chandigarh." Corrigendum dated 19.8.2000 to the extent relevant is as under :- "9(3) c) Management quota seats will be allowed only to those institutes (old and new) who will obtain No Due Certificate from the affiliating University regarding upto date dues, if any, payable to the affiliating University. The affiliating university shall forward the list of such institutes to the co-ordinator, B.Ed. Entrance Test counselling 2006-07 who will publish the list of management quota seats (subject-wise, institute wise and university wise) atleast 10 days prior to the start of second counselling. There will be no extra fees on account of Management Quota Seats..." 5 It has been further stated that a decision was taken by the Syndicate of the University on 4.5.2007 that institutions filling up seats without seeking affiliation will be required to deposit the entire fee collected from the students, apart from fine. The petitioner-college did not seek affiliation and filled up 13 seats in the management quota without NOC and therefore, fine of Rs. 4 lacs was imposed in addition to fee of Rs. 4,55,000/- 6. The petitioner-college did not seek affiliation and filled up 13 seats in the management quota without NOC and therefore, fine of Rs. 4 lacs was imposed in addition to fee of Rs. 4,55,000/- 6. When the case came up for hearing on 3.10.2007, learned counsel for the State was asked to explain how the management quota was being allowed even after the Constitution Bench judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar v. Statc of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 3226 : [2005(5) SLR 409 (SC)]., holding that for a non-minority educational institution, all seats in higher education had to be tilled up by merit, through centralised counselling. An affidavit dated 16.10.2007 has been filed justifying the allocation of such a quota on the basis of policy guidelines dated 10.6.2003 issued by the Government of India on the hasis of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. Statc of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355 : [2002(6) SLR 627 (SC)]. The said policy guidelines have been annexed to file reply. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused file record. The questions for consideration are : (i) Whether the impugned order of imposition of fine for not fulfilling the requirement of affiliation is justified ? (ii) Whether the petitioner-College was liable to be proceeded against for not complying with the procedure laid down in the corrigendum for tilling up of the ianagement quota ? (iii) Whether management quota can be provided for a non- minority educational institution ? Re : (i) The impugned order reads as under : "It is to inform you in reply to your letter No. CTCE/1635 dated 12.1.2007 that you college C.T. College of Education, Jalandhar, has fulfilled thirteen seats under management quota for B.Ed course for the session 2006-07. Nevever, you were not given permission to fulfil the seats of management quota :- you failed to comply the conditions. The University has imposed the penalty of Rs. 4 lacs as you fulfil the seats of management quota without the permission of the university and deposit the total fee of the thirteen students i.e. Rs. 4,55,000/-. Therefore, deposit the total amount equal to Rs. 8,55,000/- with the University and the information may be given to the undersigned." 8. The University has imposed the penalty of Rs. 4 lacs as you fulfil the seats of management quota without the permission of the university and deposit the total fee of the thirteen students i.e. Rs. 4,55,000/-. Therefore, deposit the total amount equal to Rs. 8,55,000/- with the University and the information may be given to the undersigned." 8. A perusal of notification Annexure P. 1 shows that name of the petitionercollege was duly mentioned at Item No. 5 of the list of colleges, where approval of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) had been granted and seats were available to be filled up by way of centralised counselling., As regards the requirement of NOC, in view of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dayaneshwar Shishan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others, 2006 (9) SCC 1., NOC from the State was not required for grant of recognition by the NCTE and requirement of affiliation was only termal after recognition had been granted. 9. Thus, we are of the view that the impugned order of imposing fine on the ground that permission of the University was not given, was not justified. Re : (ii) 10 In the corrigendum dated 11.8.2006 quoted herein above, procedure was laid down for filling up management seats on the basis of merit of the entrance test in a transparent manner after publishing advertisement in two leading newspapers. Such corrigendum was necessary to check commercialisation and promotion of excellence in education by making merit the sole criteria. In the order passed by this Court dated 10.10.2007 in CWP No. 9495 of 2007, Sukhmeet Kaur Deol and others v. State of Punjab and others., it was observed : "There is clear need to check commercialisation and promote excellence in education by making merit the sole criteria. Ignoring merit is contrary to the constitutional values, as enshrined in the Preamble, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties. Some of the effects of commercialisation clearly will be commercialisation of the profession and frustration amongst meritorious students. Effects of ignoring merit have been noticed at length in the opinion of Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3724., paras 194 to 216. Strong regulatory mechanism is required to be adopted to prevent profiteering as the main object of imparting higher education. Effects of ignoring merit have been noticed at length in the opinion of Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3724., paras 194 to 216. Strong regulatory mechanism is required to be adopted to prevent profiteering as the main object of imparting higher education. The object of the policy cannot solely be to enable seats to be filled up so that profit does not suffer but to enable merit alone to be promoted.." The corrigendum appears to be consistent with the above observations. 11 The University, however, appears to have taken action only on a technical ground of NOC not having been obtained. The explanation that the advertisement, Annexure P.1 having included the name of the petitioner- college. the petitioner college was not clear about the requirement of NOC, could be a possible explanation, as has already been held while dealing with Question No. (i) but since the University did not proceed to take action for violating the procedure for filling up of the management seats in the light of corrigendum issued, which has been relied upon in reply, we are of the view that the University ought to be given liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Re : (ii) 12 The question whether any management quota could be provided, has been gone into in a judgment of this Court dated 4.10.2007 in CWP No. 8961 of 2007, Army Institute of Higher Education v. State of Punjab. and after referring to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in PA Inamdar (supra), it was observed :- "The principles which clearly emerge from judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra) are : (i) Imparting higher education at Graduate level and above and in professional/technical education, constitutes a separate class. Recognition and affiliation are required for such education. Even a private unaided institution has to make merit based selection; (Paras 110, 131, 134, 135, 143). (ii) Such education constitutes national wealth and State can arrange for holding a Comman Entrance Test and successful candidates can be allotted to unaided institutions also. Common Entrance Test can also be held by the institutions themselves or in certain circumstances by individual institutions, if no such Common Entrance Test is being held by the State, but the selection has to be based on merit. Common Entrance Test can also be held by the institutions themselves or in certain circumstances by individual institutions, if no such Common Entrance Test is being held by the State, but the selection has to be based on merit. Allotting of candidates to minority institutions depends on kind of minority. But even for this, inter se merit of the category of such students cannot be ignored; (Paras 89, 131, 133, 135 and 143)...." 13. Thus, we are of the view that there cannot be any quota at the discretion of any non-minority management and all admissions have to be made on merit, open to all eligible candidates. It appears to be for this reason that a corrigendum has been issued by the State of Punjab itself on 11.8.2006 requiring admissions to be made for management quota also only by merit of the entrance test. Learned counsel for the State relied upon observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in Para 68 in TMA Pai Foundation (supra). We are of the view that the observations relied upon the behalf of the State have been duly explained in P.A. Inamdar (supra) and it has been held that the said observations could not be read as laying down law to the effect that admissions to higher education at Graduate level or in professional/technical education could be otherwise than on merit at the discretion of any management. Reference may be made to paras 72, 73, 112, 113 and 123 to 125 in PA Inamdar (supra), which deal with the scope of para 68 in TMA Pai Foundation (supra). It was held that the same only dealt with the autonomy of private institutions as against reservation to be made by the State and counsel management whereby the private unaided institutions may accept reservation. In para 143 in PA Inamdar (supra), it was clearly concluded that non-minority unaided institutions, had to make admissions only on merit open to all eligible students by a fair and transparent admission procedure. In view of the above, we are of the view that there cannot be any management quota at the discretion of a management of an unaided institution. As already observed, the State of Punjab vide corrigendum dated 11.8. 2006 made a provision that management had also to be tilled up by merit of the entrance test. In view of the above, we are of the view that there cannot be any management quota at the discretion of a management of an unaided institution. As already observed, the State of Punjab vide corrigendum dated 11.8. 2006 made a provision that management had also to be tilled up by merit of the entrance test. We, accordingly, hold that provision for management which may enable the management to fill up the seats otherwise than on merit, is not permissible in law. Question (iii) stands answered accordingly. In view of above discussion, while we hold that the impugned order Annexure P.15 cannot be sustained, the University given liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the above observations. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.