Satish Kumar v. V. C. Bhupendra Nr. Mandal University
2007-01-05
AFTAB ALAM, REKHA KUMARI
body2007
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Eighteen appeals in this batch of twenty arise out of a common judgment by which the cases giving rise to those appeals (alongwith some other analogous cases) were dismissed by a learned single Judge. Following that judgment two other similar cases were dismissed by two other single Judges giving rise to the other two appeals in the batch. 2. The matter relates to revocation and cancellation, with retrospective effect, of the recognition/affiliation granted to four Teachers Training Colleges, claiming to be minority institutions by the State Government and the University respectively. As a consequence of revocation of recognition/affiliation, the degrees granted by the University to the students of those Colleges for the past sessions have also been cancelled affecting a large number of students. The concerned Colleges are four in number. These are (i) National Teachers Training College, Arer, Madhubani Darbhanga, (ii) S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Murgiyachak, Darbhanga, (iii) R. A. College of Education, Kunjour, and (iv) Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Katihar. The first two Colleges were granted affiliation by Lalit Narayan Mithiia University, Darbhanga and the other two by B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 3. Curiously though it is only the first institution, namely, National Teachers Training College, Arer that has come to challenge the actions of the Government and the University in revoking its recognition/affiliation and the degrees granted to its students retrospectively. It also seeks to challenge the action of the National Council of Teacher Education in withdrawing its recognition as a consequence of the revocation of the recognition/affiliation by the State Government/the University. The other three institutions do not seem to be bothered by the actions of the Government/ University. None of the three institutions has come forward to challenge the notices/orders concerning them and in case of those three Colleges, only individual students have come to the Court, trying to save their degrees granted by the Universities to which those Colleges were affiliated. 4. The genesis of the matter lies in institution of criminal cases against the promoters and office bearers of the four Colleges for criminal conspiracy, cheating, fraud, forgery etc. It appears that enquiries were made in the affairs of these Colleges by the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and in light of the enquiry report, First Information Reports were lodged at the Vigilance Police Station giving rise to different cases.
It appears that enquiries were made in the affairs of these Colleges by the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and in light of the enquiry report, First Information Reports were lodged at the Vigilance Police Station giving rise to different cases. In view of the materials, forming the basis of the F.I.Rs., directions were issued to the concerned Universities to retrospectively revoke the recognition granted to the Colleges. The Vice-Chancellor of the concerned Universities followed by issuing the notices/orders of revocation, retrospectively cancelling the affiliation of the Colleges. 5. For the sake of convenience, I propose to take up the matter concerning each of the four Colleges separately. NATIONAL TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE ARER, MADHUBANI UNDER LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY (LPA No. 432 of 2001, arising from CWJC No. 5430 of 1999). 6. On the basis of the Vigilance enquiry, a first Information Report was lodged against the promoters and office bearers of the College, on 11.5.1999 giving rise to Vigilance Police Station Case No. 8 of 1999. Following the institution of the case, the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education issued letter, dated 18.5.1999 to the Vice-Chancellor/Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga stating that in the F.I.R. of the Vigilance Case, the departments letter no. 307, dated 4.12.1997 (by which the College was granted recognition) was described as forged and it came to light that that letter was the result of interpolation and manipulation in Government records; further that in view of the facts coming to light, letter no. 307, dated 4.12.1997 was liable to be cancelled. An Office order was then issued by the Vice-Chancellor on 25.5.1999 stating that the College was granted permanent affiliation by the University on the basis of the Government letter bearing No. 307, dated 4.12.1997 which was cancelled for being a forgery. As a result, affiliation granted to the College vide order under Memo No. 20/68-74, dated 11.12.1997 too was cancelled. Consequently, all registrations of students, examination(s) held and mark-sheets/degrees granted to the students passing that/those examination(s) also stood cancelled.
As a result, affiliation granted to the College vide order under Memo No. 20/68-74, dated 11.12.1997 too was cancelled. Consequently, all registrations of students, examination(s) held and mark-sheets/degrees granted to the students passing that/those examination(s) also stood cancelled. Later on, the National Council of Teacher Education also issued an order, dated 4/7.6.1999 by which it withdrew its earlier letter, dated 23.2.1999 granting recognition to the College from Sessions 1999-2000 till a final decision was taken on its application, for the reason that its recognition and affiliation were retrospectively revoked by the State Government and the University. The aforesaid communication by the State Government and the Office order issued by the University and the National Council of Teacher Education (at annexures 15, 16 and 18 respectively to the writ petition) were challenged by the petitioner. The same three communication and orders come under challenge in this appeal. 7. In the judgment coming under appeal, the case of the College is described in paragraph 2 and the case of the respondents with regard to the College in paragraph 7. On behalf of the College, it was submitted that it was established as a minority institution in 1987. On 7.7.1987, it applied to the State Government for recognition under the Bihar Non-Government Physical Training Colleges and Non-Government Teachers Training Colleges and Non-Government Primary Teachers Training Colleges (Control and Regulations) Act, 1982. Even while a decision on its application was pending, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 came into force with effect from 17.8.1995, in light of which the State Government was requested to forward the application for recognition to the Eastern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education. The State Government, however, constituted a team for inspection of the College and on the basis of the inspection report granted it recognition with effect from 1987-88. The Government decision was communicated to the University vide letter no. 307, dated 4.12.1997. Following the grant of recognition by the Government, the University informed the Secretary/Principal of the College vide letter dated 23.12.1997 that the Vice-Chancellor had given permission for 150 students for each of the sessions 1987-88 to 1995-96 to appear in the B.Ed, examination, 1997. The number of students in the session 1994-95 was later raised to 250.
307, dated 4.12.1997. Following the grant of recognition by the Government, the University informed the Secretary/Principal of the College vide letter dated 23.12.1997 that the Vice-Chancellor had given permission for 150 students for each of the sessions 1987-88 to 1995-96 to appear in the B.Ed, examination, 1997. The number of students in the session 1994-95 was later raised to 250. On 6.3.1998, the Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education allowed the College to continue till a decision was taken on its application for recognition. The recognition by the Regional Committee finally came on 23.12.1999 for the session 1999-2000 with the annual intake of 240 students. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions of the State Government, the University and the National Council for Teacher Education, the College was running when its recognition/affiliation etc. were retrospectively cancelled by the impugned orders. 8. On behalf of the respondents, it was stated that on the direction of the Chancellor, the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department held an enquiry into the affairs of the College and then it was found that the recognition order dated 4.12.1997 was the result of forgery. It was further stated that as a matter of fact, the College did not exist before 1997 and yet it managed to obtain recognition/affiliation with effect from 1987-88 and facilitated a large number of students to appear in the B.Ed, examination who had not attended any course in the College. 9. The Writ Court found and held that the four Colleges in question including National Teachers Training College were not genunine (see paragraphs 23-25 of the judgment under appeal) and accordingly rejected this writ petition alongwith all other writ petitions. 10. Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner stated that the entire case of the respondents was based on the allegation that the Government letter no. 307, dated 4.12.1997 was forged. Learned Counsel submitted that the allegation was quite unfounded. The respondents never explained the nature of forgery. It was not said that the letter was not issued by the Government Office or that the signature on it was fake: Learned Counsel further submitted that in this case, everyone including the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor had acted beyond their respective jurisdictions and in a manner not sanctioned by law.
The respondents never explained the nature of forgery. It was not said that the letter was not issued by the Government Office or that the signature on it was fake: Learned Counsel further submitted that in this case, everyone including the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor had acted beyond their respective jurisdictions and in a manner not sanctioned by law. He submitted that under Section 9 of the Bihar Universities Act, the Chancellor has no authority to get an enquiry made by the Vigilance Department and, hence, the very genesis of the matter lay in something not sanctioned by law. He next submitted that the power to affiliate or de-affiliate a College vested with the Senate of the University under Sec.21(1)(d) of the Act and the Vice-Chancellor was not competent to de-affiliate the College with retrospective effect. He also submitted that the provisions for grant of recognition and withdrawal of recognition were contained in Sections 16 & 17 of the National Council fa Teachers Training Act and revocation of recognition/affiliation by the State Government and the University was no ground for the National Council for Teacher Training to withdraw its recognition earlier granted to the College. He further submitted that in any event, cancellation of recognition/affiliation by the State Government and the University and the withdrawal of recognition by the National Council for Teacher Training could only be prospective and not with any retrospective effect. 11. I am unable to find substance in any of the submissions. Section 9 of the Bihar State Universities Act deals with the power of Chancellor. Sub-section 2 of the section, in so far as relevant for the present, provides that "the Chancellor shall have the power to inspect the University, .... any college or hostel .... and to enquire or to cause an enquiry made, in like manner, in respect of any matter connected with the University and it shall be the duty of the Officers of the concerned University and College to render necessary assistance in such inspection." In view of the express provision in the Act, it is futile to suggest that the Chancellor had no power to ask the Vigilance Department to enquire into the matter of grant of affiliation/recognition to the College.
As to the submission that under Sec.21(d) of the Act, the Senate alone had the power to affiliate or de-affiliate a College, it may be recalled that the order granting affiliation to the College (like the impugned order cancelling the affiliation) was issued by the Vice-Chancellor and not by the Senate. Mr. Mishra further argued that the provisions with regard to grant of affiliation or its recall were contained in Sections 16 and 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1983. In view of those provisions, it was not open to the National Council for Teacher Education to withdraw the recognition granted to the College earlier on the ground that the State Government and the University cancelled its recognition/affiliation. He further submitted that in any event the cancellation of recognition/affiliation could only be prospective and could not be made effective retrospectively. 12. These submissions are of no avail to the appellant/writ petitioner for the simple reason that fraud vitiates all actions. It is noted above that in the F.I.R. lodged by the Cabinet Vigilance Department, it was stated that the Government letter no. 307 dated 4.12.1997 was forged. Mr. Y. V. Giri, Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department invited our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. The counter affidavit encloses as annexures the relevant Government records. From the Government records, it appears that on 20.11.1997, the concerned Minister wrote a note in his own hand directing for the grant of recognition to the College from the date of issuance of the letter, subject to the condition that in case of violation of the prescribed norms or the College not coming up to those norms, recognition would be cancelled. The grant of recognition was from the date on which the letter would be issued following the ministers direction. But it appears that just at the beginning of the note figure 1107 was added/interpolated with the result that the note may be read to mean that affiliation was granted from the date of issuance of letter no. 1107. Letter no. 1107 was issued on 25.11.1987 and by this letter, the Government had prescribed the terms & conditions and the norms for setting up a private Teachers Training College.
1107. Letter no. 1107 was issued on 25.11.1987 and by this letter, the Government had prescribed the terms & conditions and the norms for setting up a private Teachers Training College. Thus, by a simple but highly clever interpolation in the Ministers note in the Government file, the direction for grant of recognition was made to relate back to 25.11.1987 when the College (whatever it might have been in 1997) was not even in existence. Advertisements in a State-level newspaper for admission of students were issued for the first time in 1998; yet on the basis of the interpolation/forgery in the ministers note, the College was able to obtain recognition with effect from 1986-87 and took admission of students from that session. 13. Here it may be noted that it was also argued on behalf of the appellant that the mere institution of a criminal case would not justify cancellation/revocation of recognition/affiliation with retrospective effect and in support of the submission, reliance was placed on a decision of the Court dated 1.5.2001 in CWJC No. 4166 of 2001 (Mithila Minority Dental College vs. L.N. Mithila University & Others) which was later confirmed by a Division Bench by judgment and order dated 9.10.2002 in LPA No. 432 of 2001* (L. N.Mithila University & Others vs. Mithila Minority Dental Colleges & Others). In the Single Judge decision in the Dental College Case, there are certain observations that, if taken out of context, seem to support the appellants contention. But the decision clearly makes a distinction between Colleges that were found in the Vigilance enquiry to be fraudulent and nonexistence and Colleges which were found to be running with insufficient or inadequate infrastructure. The decision had found that the Dental College fell in the latter category. But in the case in hand, there can be no doubt that National Teachers Training College, Arer, Madhubani falls in the former category. The decisions relied upon by the appellants Counsel are, therefore, of no help. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the learned single Judge was fully justified in rejecting the prayer made on behalf of this College and dismissing CWJC No. 5430 of 1999 filed on its behalf. I see absolutely no scope for any interference with the judgment coming under appeal. L.P.A. No. 432 of 2001 is accordingly dismissed.
I see absolutely no scope for any interference with the judgment coming under appeal. L.P.A. No. 432 of 2001 is accordingly dismissed. S. WAKIL AHMAD TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE MURGIYACHAK, DARBHANGA, UNDER LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY (LPA No. 421 of 2001, arising out of CWJC No. 8417 of 2000}. 15. In case of S. Wakil AhmadTeachers Training College, it is not the College management but six people claiming to be its past students who have come to the court seeking to challenge the actions of the State Govt., the University and the National Council for Teacher Education in cancelling, with retrospective effect, the recognition/affiliation granted to the College. The case was filed impleading the State and its agencies, the University and its authorities and the Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, National Council for Teachers Education as parties; the College management was not made a party to the case. In the writ petition the petitioners-appellants said many things concerning the grant of recognition/ affiliation to the College but they did not state clearly as to the sessions in which they were students of the College. All that was said in this regard in para 5 of the writ petition is that the petitioners were students of the College and had taken admission in B.Ed, course in different sessions beginning from 1985-86 to 1996- 97. All the six petitioners who might have been students of different sessions apparently appeared in the same examination held in 1998. There was no material to show that the petitioners were ever the students of the College and had completed their course from there. 16. In the judgment coming under appeal the case of the petitioners is discussed in para 5 and the case of the respondents with regard to the College is stated in para 9. 17. The case of S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College. Darbhanga is quite similar to National Teachers Training College, Arer, Madhubani discussed in the previous paragraphs. Following a vigilance enquiry, on 27.10.1999 a F.I.R. was lodged against the promoters and office bearers of the College giving rise to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 35 of 1999. The F.I.R. contains a number of allegations against the promoters/founders of the College, some authorities of L.N.M. University and some Govt, employees. It is alleged that on the basis of some collusive and fraudulent orders passed by the Special Secretary, Human Resources Dev.
The F.I.R. contains a number of allegations against the promoters/founders of the College, some authorities of L.N.M. University and some Govt, employees. It is alleged that on the basis of some collusive and fraudulent orders passed by the Special Secretary, Human Resources Dev. Department and the Vice-Chancellor and the Controller of Examination of the University, the founders of the College were able to make a large number of people appear in the examination(s) held by the University as "student" of the College. It was further alleged that the accused charged Rs. 1.5 to 2.5 lacs from every "student" depending upon the class/division in which the result of the candidate was guaranteed. It was also stated in the F.I.R. that the examination for ten sessions, from 1985-86 to 1996-97, was conducted at one time between April to June, 1998 with common examination papers in which all the so-called students of different sessions appeared. 18. According to the petitioners, on the basis of directions issued by the court from time to time, on 13.7.1998 the Vice-Chancellor "of the University granted provisional affiliation to the College for the sessions 1985-86 to 1996-97. The College was later granted temporary/provisional affiliation by the Eastern Regional Committee, National Teacher Training Council. It may, however, be noted that there is no material on record to show that the College was ever granted recognition (permanent, temporary or provisional) by the State Govt. On the contrary on a direction given by the Supreme Court in S.L.R (Civil) No. 6421 of 1987 the Govt, of Bihar issued a press communique dated 16.10.1993 cautioning the general people and giving a list of sixty two Colleges that were expressly denied recognition by it (Annexure-R to the F.I.R. of Vigilance RS. Case No. 35/1999). S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Darbhanga figures at serial no. 52 in the list of the colleges contained in the press communique. In view of the press communique, dated 16.10.1993 and in the absence of any material showing grant of recognition by the Govt, after that date, the provisional affiliation granted by the University to the College seems to be apparently collusive and fraudulent and on that basis no benefit can be claimed by anyone by somehow appearing in the examination. 19.
In view of the press communique, dated 16.10.1993 and in the absence of any material showing grant of recognition by the Govt, after that date, the provisional affiliation granted by the University to the College seems to be apparently collusive and fraudulent and on that basis no benefit can be claimed by anyone by somehow appearing in the examination. 19. On a consideration of the materials on record I am of the view that the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition and declined to give any relief to the petitioners. I see no reason to interfere with the judgment coming under appeal in so far as CWJC No. 8417 of 2000 is concerned. L.RA. No. 421 of 2001 is accordingly dismissed. R.A. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, KUNJOUR UNDER B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA (LPA Nos. 404 & 454 of 2001 arising from CWJC Nos. 10687 of 1999 & 7712 of 2000. 20. Fifteen petitioners in CWJC No. 10687 of 1999 and four in CWJC No. 7712 of 2000 similarly brought the case of R.A. College, Kunjour before the court. (LPA No. 404 of 2001 is, however, by fourteen appellants and LPA No. 454 of 2000 by three appellants). 21. In the judgment under appeal the case of the petitioners claiming to be the students of the College is stated in para 3 and the case of the respondents in para 8. 22. The case of R.A. College of Education, Kunjour is quite similar to the previous two Colleges and what is said earlier with regard to S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College substantially applies to this College as well. According to the petitioners on 14.1.1997 the Vice-Chancellor of B.N. Mandal University granted provisional affiliation to the College for the sessions 1992-93 to 1995-96. The petitioners were students of the College during those sessions. They appeared in the examination held by the University and on passing it were granted degrees. They are aggrieved by and seek to challenge the action of the respondents in cancelling their degrees following revocation of the affiliation granted to the College with retrospective effect. 23.
The petitioners were students of the College during those sessions. They appeared in the examination held by the University and on passing it were granted degrees. They are aggrieved by and seek to challenge the action of the respondents in cancelling their degrees following revocation of the affiliation granted to the College with retrospective effect. 23. On behalf of the respondents it is stated that following a vigilance enquiry on the direction of the Chancellor a F.I.R. was lodged on 24.6.1999 giving rise to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18 of 1999 in which, apart from the promoters/office bearers of the College, authorities of B.N. Mandal University and some Govt, employees were also named as accused. In connection with the case the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar and some other officials of the University were arrested on 24.6.1999. The findings of the enquiry were communicated to the Vice-Chancellor on 19.8.1999. The State Govt, also wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor asking him to take steps in light of the findings of the enquiry and the materials incorporated in the F.I.R. In pursuance of the Governments letter a notification, dated 1.9.1999 was issued by the order of the Vice-Chancellor revoking the affiliation granted to the College and cancelling the degrees etc. granted to its students. In case of R.A. College, Kunjour too it appears that it never had the recognition by the State Govt. In the press communique, dated 16.10.1993 R.A. College of Education, Madhepura is at serial no. 49. It is, therefore, evident that the provisional affiliation granted to it by the Vice-Chancellor on 14.1.1997 was collusive and fraudulent. It is for that reason perhaps that in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18 of 1999 the Vice-Chancellor of the University who was in Office at the material time figures prominently as an accused and he was also arrested on the date the F.I.R. was lodged. 24. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in LPA No. 404 of 2001 assailed the notification cancelling the affiliation granted to the College with retrospective effect on a number of grounds. Learned Counsel submitted that the institution of a criminal case could not form the basis for cancelling affiliation with retrospective effect and further that the impugned orders were passed in complete violation of the principles of nature justice.
Learned Counsel submitted that the institution of a criminal case could not form the basis for cancelling affiliation with retrospective effect and further that the impugned orders were passed in complete violation of the principles of nature justice. He also submitted that one of the reasons assigned in the impugned notification dated 1.9.1999 issued by the order of the Vice-Chancellor was that the College was not recognised under the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993; the reason given in the impugned notification was non est. He also submitted that the impugned notification dated 1.9.1999 was purportedly issued in exercise of the powers under sub-sections (11) & (12) of Sec.10 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976. Those provisions related to the emergency powers of the Vice-Chancellor. In this case, there was no emergency and hence, the issuance of the impugned notification was an abuse of the emergency powers of the Vice-Chancellor. He also pointed out that the order of the Vice-Chancellor was never ratified by the Senate/Syndicate of the University. Mr. Singh also submitted that the College in question was a minority institution, and hence, it did not require any prior permission for establishment. In support of the submission, he relied upon decision of the court in Zakia Afaque Islamia College, Siwan vs. The State of Bihar & Others 1982 BBCJ 81 [:1982 PLJR 148] (paragraph 4). 25. I am unable to accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Singh. It is true that normally an F.I.R. contains a set of allegation that are yet to be verified by investigation and established before a Court of law. But in the case in hand, the institution of the F.I.R. was preceded by a thorough enquiry by the Vigilance that brought to light some startling facts, for instance, the grant of provisional affiliation to the College, notwithstanding its name being included in the list of Colleges that were expressly denied recognition by the State Government. This circumstance alone is sufficient to indicate that the provisional affiliation was obtained in a collusive and fraudulent way. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am completely unimpressed by the submission that the mere institution of a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of affiliation granted to the College or that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. 26.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am completely unimpressed by the submission that the mere institution of a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of affiliation granted to the College or that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. 26. As to the impugned order of revocation of affiliation being issued at the instance of the Vice-Chancellor, the submission is already considered in case of National Teachers Training College where it was pointed out that the point is not available to the appellant for the simple reason that the grant of affiliation too was by the Vice-Chancellor and not by the Senate/Syndicate. 27. Further, the proposition that in case of a minority institution, no prior permission is required for its establishment has no application to this case. Permission prior to establishment and recognition by the State Government are two entirely different things. It is beyond argument that recognition by the State Government is the pre-condition for the grant of affiliation by the University. In this case, it is shown that the College was expressly denied recognition by the State Government. Nevertheless, some Vice-Chancellor of the University granted it provisional affiliation paving the way for the students to appear in the examination and get degrees from the University. The Vigilance found that it was a case of criminal conspiracy and various other offence and consequently instituted a criminal case in which the Vice-Chancellor and other authorities of the University were even arrested. 28. Mr. Singh lastly submitted that cancelling the degrees granted to the students would be very hard and unjust to them. He submitted that many students had done M. Ed. and many were in service. He submitted that the Court should at least save the degrees granted to the students. 29. Mr. B.K. Jha, Counsel appearing for the B.N. Mandal University, Mr. Lalit Kishore, Counsel for the L.N. Mithila University and Mr. Y. V. Giri, Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department strongly opposed Mr. Singhs submission. Counsel submitted that the so-called students were quite aware that they were appearing in the examination through a non-existent and fraudulent College and to that extent they too had a share in the criminal conspiracy. Any sympathy shown to them by the Court would be unmerited and misplaced. In support of the submission, Mr.
Singhs submission. Counsel submitted that the so-called students were quite aware that they were appearing in the examination through a non-existent and fraudulent College and to that extent they too had a share in the criminal conspiracy. Any sympathy shown to them by the Court would be unmerited and misplaced. In support of the submission, Mr. Jha placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in C.B.S.E. & Another vs. P. Sunil Kumar & Others (1998)5 SCC 377 [: 1998(3) PLJR (SC)24]. Mr. Lalit Kishore and Mr. Giri brought to my notice another decision of the Supreme Court in L. Muthu Kumar & Another vs. State of T.N. & Others (2000)7 SCC 618 . In my view, the submission advanced on behalf of the two Universities and the Vigilance is well founded and fully supported by the two Supreme Court decisions. I am, therefore, unable to accept even the limited submission of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh. 30. For the reasons discussed above, the two appeals relating to R. A. College of Education, Kanjour are found to be without any substance or merit. LPA Nos. 404 and 454 of 2001 are accordingly dismissed. MUSLIM MINORITY AHMADIA B.ED. COLLEGE, KATIHAR UNDER B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY. 31. This brings us to the remaining sixteen appeals in the batch relating to Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Katihar. Fourteen out of these sixteen appeals are directed against the main judgment of the learned single Judge giving rise to the appeals dealt with in the earlier part of this judgment. Another Appeal, LP.A. No. 1287 of 2001 arises out of CWJC No. 12483 of 2001 which was dismissed by another single Judge simply following the main judgment. These fifteen appeals are on behalf of a total of forty five people claiming to be the students of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Katihar who are adversely affected by the decision of the University to cancel the degrees given to them following revocation of the recognition/affiliation granted to the college. The last appeal, L.RA. No. 621 of 2006 arises from CWJC No. 2798 of 2006. The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon ble the Chief Justice sitting singly. 32. In the judgment coming under appeal, the case of the appellants, taken from CWJC No. 7478 of 2000, is briefly stated in paragraph 6 and the case of the respondents with regard to the College in paragraphs 8 & 11.
The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon ble the Chief Justice sitting singly. 32. In the judgment coming under appeal, the case of the appellants, taken from CWJC No. 7478 of 2000, is briefly stated in paragraph 6 and the case of the respondents with regard to the College in paragraphs 8 & 11. On behalf of the appellants, it was stated that the College was granted temporary recognition by the State Government on 16.9.1996 for the sessions 1987-88 to 1991-92. It received permanent recognition for the session 1992-93 onwards on 12.6.1997. Pursuant to recognition by the Government, the University gave it permanent affiliation for the session 1992-93 on 16.7.1997. The Eastern Regional Committee by letter, dated 20.5.1998 allowed the College to continue as before as per the rules of the University. It finally granted provisional recognition upto 1998-99, which is evident from the list of recognised/allowed to continue Colleges as contained in the public notice, issued by the Committee on 8.10.1998 However, by the impugned order, dated 19.5.2000, the admissions/examinations/degrees etc. of the students were cancelled on the ground of institution of the criminal case. 33. The learned Single Judge noticed (vide paragraph 11 of the judgment under appeal) the case of the respondents with regard to the College with reference to the counter affidavit filed in the case of R.A. College, Kunjour and simply observed that like the other College, a criminal case being Vigilance RS. Case No. 12 of 2000 was instituted against R.A. College, Kunjour. In considering the case of this College, alongwith R.A. College, the Writ Court seems to have missed certain significant features of distinction between the two colleges and between the criminal cases instituted against them. 34. On examining the case of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B. Ed. College separately and independently, its case appears to be quite different from the other colleges discussed in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. 35. CWJC No. 7478 of 2000 from which the learned single Judge took the facts relating to this College contains all the relevant materials and particulars with regard to the petitioners admission in the College, his registration in the University, transfer certificate from one University to another and such other documents. It contains all the foundational facts to show that the petitioner took admission in the College and pursued the course there.
It contains all the foundational facts to show that the petitioner took admission in the College and pursued the course there. It is noted above that following a Vigilance enquiry, a criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2000 was instituted against the promoters and Office bearers of the College. Even in that regard it is to be noted that the allegations against the College are of the usual kind that it was able to obtain recognition/affiliation even though it was not in existence and/or it had inadequate infrastructure, below the prescribed norms. In so far as this College is concerned, there is nothing as startling as in the case of National Teachers Training College, S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College or R. A. College of Education. As a matter of fact, the point that mere institution of a criminal case would not justify cancellation/revocation of the recognition/affiliation of the College with retrospective effect and the decisions in the case of Mithila Minority Dental College (CWJC No. 4166 of 2001 and LPA No. 610 of 2001) referred to earlier in the case of National Teachers Training College apply with full force to the case of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Katihar. 36. There is another very significant fact in regard to the Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College. It may be noted that the judgment under appeal was pronounced on 28.3.2001 by which all the writ petitions filed by people claiming to be the past students of the College were dismissed. Just about a fortnight before that, on 13.2.2001 the same Hon ble Judge (S.N. Jha, J) disposed of a writ petition being CWJC No. 912 of 2001 (Shahnaj Parween & Others vs. The Vice-Chancellor, 8.N. Mandal University & Others) with a direction to the University to hold the B.Ed, examination for the bonafide students of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Rampura, Katihar for the Session 1999-2000. In that order the learned Judge noticed the institution of the Vigilance case against the promoters of the College but in that regard observed as follows:- It is not in dispute that the college in question is a recognised college affiliated with the B.N. Mandal University.
College, Rampura, Katihar for the Session 1999-2000. In that order the learned Judge noticed the institution of the Vigilance case against the promoters of the College but in that regard observed as follows:- It is not in dispute that the college in question is a recognised college affiliated with the B.N. Mandal University. In my opinion, merely on account of pendency of the investigation relating to the affairs of the College, so long the college is recognised and affiliated with the University, the students cannot be denied the right to appear at the examination at the end of the course. In the present case a general direction is sought calling upon the University to hold examination, there is no occasion for this Court to make any adjudication on the individual claims of the petitioners. In other words, if a particular student or students are found to be ineligible to appear at the examination, they may individually be denied the right to appear at the examination but holding of the examination as a whole cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of the investigation. The Vigilance Department has no jurisdiction to determine as to whether the college satisfies the requisite criteria for recognition or not. It can only investigate if the affiliation or recognition granted by the concerned authorities smacks of any criminality. Undoubtedly, it must be observed depending upon the result of the investigation steps may be taken by the Government and the University to withdraw the recognition and the affiliation but so long as the college remains recognised and affiliated the University has no option but to hold the examination. 37 This order also refers to some earlier orders of the Court by which the University was asked to take examination of the students of that Collge. 38. Against the single Judge decision in CWJC No. 912 of 2001 (Shahnaj Parween & Others vs. The Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University & Others), the University preferred LPA No. 628 of 2001. That LPA was heard alongwith two other cases and the order of the single Judge, in so far as Ahmadia College is concerned, was confirmed vide judgment and order, dated 17.7.2003 reported in 2003(4) PLJR 197 . The order of the Division Bench has attained finality.
That LPA was heard alongwith two other cases and the order of the single Judge, in so far as Ahmadia College is concerned, was confirmed vide judgment and order, dated 17.7.2003 reported in 2003(4) PLJR 197 . The order of the Division Bench has attained finality. Thus, the position that emerges is that by virtue of the decision of the Court, the University was obliged to hold examination for the session 1999-2000 for the students of this College. But on the other hand, the degrees granted to the students in the past sessions from the same College stand cancelled by the impugned orders, confirmed by the judgment coming under appeal. Needless to say that it is a highly anomalous situation. 39. Counsel appearing for the respondent University submitted that the Division Bench decision in the case of Shahnaj Parween was not followed by a later Division Bench in Rajkiya Khwaja Shahid Hussain Primary Teacher Training College vs. The State of Bihar & Others, 2005(4) PLJR 607 and in another later case from Ahmadia College in CWJC No. 2798 of 2006 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decision in Khwaja Shahid Hussain College. 40. To my mind, the submission does not answer the basic anomaly and does not alter the position. In the first place, the decision in Khwaja Shahid Hussain College was in the case of a different College. It is true that in that case, the earlier Division Bench decision in Shahnaj Parween was not followed and it was distinguished but the decision in Khwaja Shahid Hussain College was on different set of facts. Moreover, the basic anomaly that the students of the 1999-2000 session from the same College appeared in the examination and got their degrees on the basis of a decision of the Court while students of the past sessions from the same College lost their degrees by the impugned order confirmed by the decision coming under appeal remains unresolved. 41. As to the later case frqm Ahmadia College (CWJC No. 2798 of 2006) in which the writ petition was dismissed following the Division Bench decision in Khwaja Shahid Hussain College, the decision of the single Judge is under appeal (LPA No.621 of 2006) in this batch. 42.
41. As to the later case frqm Ahmadia College (CWJC No. 2798 of 2006) in which the writ petition was dismissed following the Division Bench decision in Khwaja Shahid Hussain College, the decision of the single Judge is under appeal (LPA No.621 of 2006) in this batch. 42. In LPA No. 621 of 2006, the judgment of the Writ Court coming under appeal held that the College had no proper recognition by the National Council of Teachers Education because the grant of recognition was not published in the Gazette as required by law. In the judgment, there is no reference of the letter, dated 20.5.1998 issued by the Regional Committee of the Council by which the College was allowed to continue nor there is any reference of the public notice issued by the Committee in which the College was shown in the list of Colleges recognised/allowed to continue by the Committee. If the Committee failed to get its order/letter published in the Gazette, I see no reason why the students should be penalized for the lapse in its part. 43. Moreover, from the judgment under appeal, it appears that the decisions in Shahnaj Parween and in the LPA arising from that case were brought to the notice of the Writ Court. The decisions in Shahnaj Parween constituted a binding precedent for the learned single Judge. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to sustain the order of the Writ Court in CWJC No. 2798 of 2006. 44. At this stage, it has to be noted that Mr. Pathak, Counsel appearing for the National Council of Teachers Education greatly emphasised that in some case, it was claimed on behalf of the College that by Office Order No. 4603, dated 1.10.1997, the.Eastern Regional Committee allowed it to continue until final disposal of its application. He invited our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 9 in LPA No. 850 of 2001. At Annexure A to the counter affidavit is a letter from the Regional Director, dated 8/9.11.2001. In the letter, it is stated that in some case (CWJC No. 8624 of 2000 (sic. 2001) filed by Kumari Sharmila & Others) it was discovered that the petitioners placed reliance on a letter purportedly issued by the Eastern Regional Committee under memo no.
At Annexure A to the counter affidavit is a letter from the Regional Director, dated 8/9.11.2001. In the letter, it is stated that in some case (CWJC No. 8624 of 2000 (sic. 2001) filed by Kumari Sharmila & Others) it was discovered that the petitioners placed reliance on a letter purportedly issued by the Eastern Regional Committee under memo no. 4603 dated 1.10.1997 by which the College was allowed to continue until disposal of its final application but on verification it was found to be fake since the letter of that number was despatched on 31.10.1997 to Dr. M.S. Chatterjee, the then Director, SC R.T., West Bengal. Mr. Pathak submitted that from Annexure A to the counter affidavit it was evident that the College indulged in fraud and forgery etc. I would not like to make any comment with regard to the letter bearing no. 4603, dated 1.10.1997 since it is already a subject of criminal case. For the purpose of the present appeals, suffice to note that the appellants are not placing reliance on letter no. 4603, dated 1.10.1997. According to the appellants, the Eastern Regional Committee allowed the College to continue as before by letter dated 20.5.1998 and the College was also shown in the list of Colleges recognised/allowed to continue as contained in the public notice issued by the Committee on 10.8.1998. Neither the letter, dated 20.5.1998 nor the inclusion of the College in the list of Colleges in the public notice dated 8.10.1998 is alleged to be false, fraudulent or fake. It, therefore, cannot be said that the College was running fraudulently or on the basis of some fake letter from the Regional Committee of Teacher Education. 45. On a consideration of the material facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears to me that the case of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B. Ed. College, Rampura, Katihar is different from the other three Colleges in this batch of appeals. 46. It is seen above that the University was obliged to hold examination for the students of the College of the session 1999-2000. Hence, in order to cure the anomaly, the degrees granted to the students of the College for the past sessions must also be restored. The Government order and the University notification bearing no.
46. It is seen above that the University was obliged to hold examination for the students of the College of the session 1999-2000. Hence, in order to cure the anomaly, the degrees granted to the students of the College for the past sessions must also be restored. The Government order and the University notification bearing no. G.S. (A-700)- VCO-615/2000, dated 19.5.2000 (Annexure 14 to CWJC No. 7478 of 2000) are accordingly quashed only in so far as those direct for the cancellation of the degrees granted to the appellants in these appeals. This order shall have no effect on the criminal case being Vigilance RS. Case No. 12 of 2000 or on the issue of recognition/affiliation of the College by the State Government, University or the Regional Committee of National Teachers Education Council. 47. This judgment will also be of no help to the promoters/Office bearers of the College in making a plea for the grant of recognition/affiliation of the College. 48. In the result, LPA Nos. 453, 460, 1287, 422, 470, 836, 839, 876, 945, 840, 849, 850, 851, 852 & 858 of 2001 and 621 of 2006 are allowed and LPA Nos. 432, 421, 404 & 454 of 2001 are dismissed and Annexure 14 to CWJC No. 7478 of 2000 is partly set aside to the extent indicated above. Rekha Kumari, J. 49 I Agree.