Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 849 (MP)

SYSCON COMPUTER SHIKSHA SAMITI v. STATE OF M P

2008-07-10

DIPAK MISRA, K.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) THE writ petitioner, SYSCON Computer Shiksha Samiti, a registered society under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, engaged in Computer Education, got itself associated to Makhanlal chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, the second respondent herein, under the provisions of "association of Study Institutes", as per letter dated 05. 07. 2004, Annexure P/2, which categorically and unequivocally mentions that the institution was conferred the benefit of Association to the University for students with intake capacity of 50 in respect of two courses, namely, Post Graduate diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) and Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) with the stipulation that the institution shall be situated at 12, Rajgarh road, Biaora and would abide by the norms fixed by the University from time to time as is evident from the material brought on record. The petitioner admitted students and they appeared in courses for certain years, but, however, for the year in question, 2007-08, the petitioner submitted a list of 47 students for the purpose of getting admit- cards to appear in the examination in respect of the aforesaid two courses but the same was refused by the University. ( 2. ) BEING dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Registrar of the University, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition with number of prayers especially to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-University to accept the application dated 17. 12. 2007 with a demand draft of the petitioner for the purpose of students taking the examination. This Court vide order dated 28. 12. 2007 directed the students of the Society to appear in the examination with a rider that the result shall not be declared without leave of the court. ( 3. ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the University contending, inter alia, that the inspecting team of the University, on inspection, found that the petitioner-institute was not functional at the address given. On the aforesaid base, a show cause notice was issued on 22. 01. 2007 but no reply was filed. However, a letter was submitted on 03. 02. 2007 informing that the Society had changed the place of institute from the original place to 6, Shyamlal Marg, Bhanwarganj, Rajgarh, Biaora. The University thereafter cancelled the association as per order dated 09. 04. 2007 contained in Annexure R/9. ( 4. 01. 2007 but no reply was filed. However, a letter was submitted on 03. 02. 2007 informing that the Society had changed the place of institute from the original place to 6, Shyamlal Marg, Bhanwarganj, Rajgarh, Biaora. The University thereafter cancelled the association as per order dated 09. 04. 2007 contained in Annexure R/9. ( 4. ) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner Society putting forth a stance that the order of cancellation had not been served on the petitioner-institute and, therefore, they were in the dark with regard to the issue of cancellation. Be it noted that various aspects have been highlighted to justify the stand that the order of cancellation was not justified in the obtaining factual matrix. ( 5. ) WE have heard Mr. A. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Amit Verma, learned counsel for the second respondent, the University. ( 6. ) AT the very outset, we must make it clear that we are not intending to address whether the order of refusal of association had been served on the petitioner-institute or not; whether the institute had played hide and seek; and whether it had suppressed material facts and approached this Court invoking its equitable jurisdiction seeking an interim relief and further whether the petitioner would be entitled to adjudication of the present writ petition when there is asseveration that it had filed a suit. As far as the last aspect is concerned, Mr. A. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly stated that the petitioner would withdraw the suit within two weeks hence, and, therefore, the writ petition be dealt with on merits. Hence, we proceed. ( 7. ) THE fulcrum of the matter is whether the institute has proceeded lawfully while changing the place wherein the institute was functioning to another place. Mr. Amit Verma, learned counsel for the second respondent, has drawn our attention to Clause 17 of the "association of Study Institutes", which deals with change of Society, Institute Name, Director Name and Location. Learned counsel has especially invited our attention to Clause 17 (1 ). On a perusal of the said clause, it is perceptible that various conditions precedent have been provided for effecting change of location. The prior approval of the University is imperative. Learned counsel has especially invited our attention to Clause 17 (1 ). On a perusal of the said clause, it is perceptible that various conditions precedent have been provided for effecting change of location. The prior approval of the University is imperative. The procedure clearly stipulates that a resolution has to be passed by the Governing body of the Institute and a demand draft of Rs. 1000/- in the name of the University has to be sent. That apart, many other aspects do find mention in the said clause which we do not intend to refer, for the Institute had only sent a letter on 03. 02. 2007, as is unmistakably clear, without following any procedure as has been prescribed. Indubitably, the institute arrogated itself to be the master of all procedure and dug the grave of law as if it had the capacity to do so. An institute which gets associated to the University to impart education can not be allowed to proceed to change its location at his own pleasure and leisure. We really fail to fathom how the institute could shift the location without even applying as per the prescribed norms. Such a proclivity of the institute is not only to be deprecated but condemned from all spectrums so that realisation would dawn upon it that it can not take law unto its own hands. The mercurial proponement of Mr. A. D. Mishra that the cancellation of Association as passed in Annexure R/9 was not served on the Institute is sans substance because when an application is filed without following the due process of law or due procedure prescribed under the law, the same has to meet with death or extinction. Hence, the submission is only noted to be rejected. Therefore, we do not find any error or fallacy in the order of cancellation passed by the university. ( 8. ) THE present case, if we allow ourselves to say so, has a different scenario. It is urged by Mr. A. D. Mishra that the Institute is functional and it shall file an application as per the norms prescribed at present within 4 weeks. Learned counsel for the University submitted that the University shall consider the same in a most objective manner. We appreciate the stand put forth by Mr. Amit Verma. ( 9. It is urged by Mr. A. D. Mishra that the Institute is functional and it shall file an application as per the norms prescribed at present within 4 weeks. Learned counsel for the University submitted that the University shall consider the same in a most objective manner. We appreciate the stand put forth by Mr. Amit Verma. ( 9. ) ORDINARILY, so stating, we would have proceeded to record our conclusions, but, a pregnant one, 47 students who were studying in the institute have appeared in the examination. Mr. Verma does not dispute the said fact. We may hasten to add that this is not a case where there is no recognition from a competent authority or affiliation from the University. The institute had the association but it has been cancelled solely on the ground of change of place. Thus, the case stands on a distinct platform in the sense that there is no recognition and no affiliation and the educational institute had admitted the students. Hence, we direct the results in respect of the 47 students to be published. ( 10. ) ANOTHER interesting feature which is worth noting in this case is that on the foundation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge by way of interim measure, the petitioner institution got emboldened and sent forms for 56 students. . The University accepted the forms and they appeared in the examination. Mr. Verma has drawn our attention to Annexure R/10 dated 02. 11. 2007 whereby the university had not issued admit -cards in respect of 9 students who claimed to have studied in Genius Computer Education, Rajgarh. After the interim order was passed, the petitioner institute submitted the names of the said students as students of its institute. It is contended by Mr. A. D. Mishra that the said students obtained "no Objection Certificate" from Genius Computer Education on 02. 12. 2007 as per Annexure R/11 and accordingly, their forms were sent. On a query being made as to what is the period of teaching for a semester, it is fairly stated before us by the learned counsel for the parties that it is six months. 12. 2007 as per Annexure R/11 and accordingly, their forms were sent. On a query being made as to what is the period of teaching for a semester, it is fairly stated before us by the learned counsel for the parties that it is six months. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the institute admitted the students of Genius Computer Education in its institute in the second semester and forwarded the names to the University for obtaining admit- cards to undertake the admission. The University had refused the same on 02. 11. 2007. Genius computer Education might have given No Objection Certificate but it is quite perplexing that how could the present institute sponsor the said names for appearing in the examination when they had not studied six months in thi| institute and further when the intake capacity of the institute was 50. As is patent, all norms were thrown to winds by the institute while sending the forms of these nine students. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that the University should not. have accepted the forms of these nine candidates and once it had accepted it, it was the obligation of the University to publish the result. Per. contra, the submission of Mr. Verma is that the same was done pursuant to the interim order and there was no time to seek any kind of clarification. If we are to appreciate the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, we may say that an endeavour has been made to construct the superstructure without any kind of infrastructure. The institute has itself not followed the procedure while shifting. It has taken students in the midway whose admission for examination was not allowed by the University. It appears that the institute has not taken any care to understand the norms that have been prescribed by the University. It may look on a first flush that the petitioner institute has been trying to be charitable and merciful but if the mask is unclothed it will be clear that it has a mercenary attitude. The whole game pertains to money making. It may look on a first flush that the petitioner institute has been trying to be charitable and merciful but if the mask is unclothed it will be clear that it has a mercenary attitude. The whole game pertains to money making. It is easy to blame the University and stay away but when the veil is lifted it becomes transparent that the institute could not have sponsored the names of certain students to undertake the examination who are not entitled to appear through the petitioner institute. ( 11. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to command the University to publish the results of those nine candidates who have not studied earlier in the petitioner institute. We warn the institute not to pave an ingenuous and path which mars the marrow of education. ( 12. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we record our conclusions and directions in seriatim as under:- (a) The University shall publish the results of 47 students who have studied in the petitioner institute and appeared in the examination in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court. (b) The said direction is issued as there is no cavil with regard to grant of any kind of recognition or affiliation. (c) The petitioner institute shall apply for change of location as engrafted under the Association of Study Institutes within 4 weeks. (d) The University shall, on being satisfied with regard to compliance of the norms, permit the change of location and not adopt a hyper technical attitude. (e) Though there is no illegality in cancellation of the association as there has been non-compliance of sub-clause 17. 1, yet as the same only relates to change of location, the University will not give effect to the said order of cancellation unless on further verification on the basis of application submitted by the petitioner institute, it is found that the change of location totally runs counter to the norms fixed in the Association of Study Institutes prevalent as on today. We have said so as we have been apprised by mr. Verma that guidelines have been changed in the year 2008, (f) If any deficiency is found, the same shall be pointed out by the University so that the institute can remove the same. We have said so as we have been apprised by mr. Verma that guidelines have been changed in the year 2008, (f) If any deficiency is found, the same shall be pointed out by the University so that the institute can remove the same. (g) The suit pending in the trial Court shall be withdrawn within a week hence, and the learned trial Judge will be well advised to dismiss the suit. (h) The institute hence forth shall be guided by the norms prescribed by the University from time to time and not behave like an "enfant terrible" and spoil the atmosphere. (i) The students whose results are not being allowed to be published can appear in the examination after completing the requisite course. Be it noted, we have not directed the results to be published by the University as the fault, singularly and exclusively, is found with the institute. The petitioner institute shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to each of the said nine students. (j) The University shall refund the fee that was collected from the said nine students when approached. Needless to emphasize, this is in addition to the compensation to be paid by the institute. ( 13. ) THE writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. C. c. as per rules. Petition disposed of.