JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—This appeal has been preferred by the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’), the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council of the University against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11th March, 2010, where under the learned Single Judge has called upon the parties to exchange their affidavits and until further orders of the Court, has stayed the operation of the decision taken by the Executive Council of the University dated 13th January, 2010. 2. Mr. P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gautam Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that only on two grounds the interim order has been passed by the learned Single Judge; firstly, non-obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government and secondly, non-affording the opportunity of hearing to the Management of the institution before passing the order cancelling the affiliation of the institution by the Executive Council of the University under Section 37(8) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act, 1973’). However, he proposed at first that if the respondent-Committee of Management did not get any opportunity to place its case, though notices were served, then they can be given opportunity to present their case to the Vice-Chancellor and the decision of the Executive Council will be connected with the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. There is no dearth of power to the Vice-Chancellor. Moreover, the representation dated 16th January, 2010, on which the writ petitioner - respondent No. 4 is placing reliance, is addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University. He has further stated that though the State Government was not informed of the decision of the Executive Council, but the State Government appointed the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to enquire into the charges and submit its report. Mr. Baghel has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court on the factual issue, i.e., for mass-copying etc. The first judgment in Controller of Examinations and others v. G.S. Sunder and another, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 82. Paragraph 10 of such judgment, which is relevant for the purpose, is quoted hereinbelow : “10. We have given our careful consideration to the above submissions. One thing must be put beyond doubt, in matters of enforcement of discipline this Court must be very slow in interference. Paragraph 10 of such judgment, which is relevant for the purpose, is quoted hereinbelow : “10. We have given our careful consideration to the above submissions. One thing must be put beyond doubt, in matters of enforcement of discipline this Court must be very slow in interference. After all, the authorities in charge of education whose duty it is to conduct examinations fairly and properly, know best how to deal with situations of this character. One cannot import fine principles of law and weigh the same in golden scales. In the present system of education, the system of examinations is the best suited to assess the progress of the student so long as they are fairly conducted. Interference by Court in every case may lead to unhappy results making the system of examination a farce. For instance, we cannot but strongly condemn copying in the examination which has grown into canker of mass copying. Such unhealthy practices which are like poisonous weeds in the field of education must be rooted out in order that the innocent and the intelligent students are not affected. We feel that : “The hour has come when we must clear The educational fields from poison and from fear; We must remould our standards—build them higher, And clear the air as though by cleansing fire, Weed out the damning traitors to education, Restore her to her ancient place of awe.” 3. It appears from the above judgment that the question of principles of natural justice cannot be said to be violated and in any such circumstance, technicalities of law should not be imported to further the cause of a student, who was indulged in malpractice. The second judgment, on which Mr. Baghel has relied upon, is Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, (2009) 1 SCC 59. Paragraph 27 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow : “27. The second judgment, on which Mr. Baghel has relied upon, is Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, (2009) 1 SCC 59. Paragraph 27 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow : “27. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by educational institutions vide Board of High School & Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar Prasad (vide AIR para 12), J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University (vide SCC para 17 : AIR para 17), Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University (vide SCC para 7 : AIR para 7). We wish to reiterate the view taken in the above decisions, and further state that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and orders of the educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair means in the examinations.” 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has contended before this Court that the cancellation of affiliation of an institution is not in the hands of the Vice-Chancellor, but is in the hands of the Executive Council. The Executive Council is a body wherein the Vice-Chancellor, though acts as Chairman, is an individual. Under such circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor cannot be permitted to take a decision in this regard. Moreover, no decision has yet been taken or communicated by the State Government. Whatever document has been shown to this Court with regard to the decision, the same is merely proposal for the purpose of making an enquiry. 5. We have gone through the relevant provisions being sub-sections (7), (8) and (9) of Section 37 of the Act, 1973, which are quoted hereinbelow : “37. Affiliated Colleges.—(1) This Section shall apply to the Universities of Agra, Gorakhpur, Kanpur and Meerut and such other Universities (not being the University of Lucknow as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, specify. (2) ....................................... (3) ....................................... (4) ....................................... (5) ....................................... (6) ....................................... Affiliated Colleges.—(1) This Section shall apply to the Universities of Agra, Gorakhpur, Kanpur and Meerut and such other Universities (not being the University of Lucknow as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, specify. (2) ....................................... (3) ....................................... (4) ....................................... (5) ....................................... (6) ....................................... (7) The Executive Council may direct an affiliated college so inspected to take such action as may appear to it to be necessary within such period as may be specified. (8) The privileges of affiliation of a college which fails to comply with any direction of the Executive Council under sub-section (7) or to fulfil the conditions of affiliation may, after obtaining a report from the Management of the college and with the previous sanction of the State Government, be withdrawn or curtailed by the Executive Council in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes. (9) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) and (8), if the Management of an affiliated college has failed to fulfil the conditions of affiliation, the State Government may, after obtaining a report from the Management and the Vice-Chancellor, withdraw or curtail the privileges of affiliation. (10) ......................................” 6. It has been contended by Mr. Khare that in view of sub-section (8) of Section 37 of the Act, 1973, the Executive Council is the authority to take decision in this regard and since the decision has been taken without affording opportunity to the institution, the affiliation of the institution be continued till May, 2010 and the students, who are appearing in the examinations, be permitted to appear in the examinations on the basis of the interim order. 7. At this stage, Mr. Baghel has submitted before this Court, in the form of an undertaking, that there is no intention of the University to interfere with the right of the students, who have already sat for the examination and are pursuing the same. If any decision is taken, that will be applicable only from July, 2010, but not before that date. 8. However, the core issue before us is whether the Vice-Chancellor can take decision in this regard or not and what will happen with regard to the decision of the Executive Council. According to us, sub-section (9) of Section 37 of the Act, 1973 is very clear and categorical in this respect. 8. However, the core issue before us is whether the Vice-Chancellor can take decision in this regard or not and what will happen with regard to the decision of the Executive Council. According to us, sub-section (9) of Section 37 of the Act, 1973 is very clear and categorical in this respect. There is no dearth of power of the State Government to obtain a report from the Management as well as from the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw or curtail the privileges of affiliation. If this is the case of the Management of the institution that they did not get any opportunity to make their submissions, we are of the view that they can get a chance to make their submissions before the Vice-Chancellor as per their own representation to him. 9. Therefore, we direct that the Management will make their submissions before the Vice-Chancellor within a period of fortnight from the date of obtaining a certified copy of this order which will be treated to be the statement of the Management. The Vice-Chancellor after giving fullest opportunity of hearing to the Management and considering the submissions of the Management and all other relevant materials in connection thereto will prepare a report with his comments and send the same under a sealed cover to the State Government within a period of fortnight thereafter for the purpose of taking decision in the matter by the State. The submission of the Management will also form part of the report. The State Government, in turn, will pass appropriate order within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of such report. However, the decision of the Executive Council will abide by the decision of the State Government on the basis of the report of the Vice-Chancellor and the submission of the Management. No interference will be made with the studies of the students who are going to sit in the examination, on the basis of the undertaking given by Mr. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University. 10. With the above observations and order, the special appeal is disposed of. No order is passed as to costs. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any other purpose to keep the writ petition pending, therefore, the writ petition is also disposed of without imposing any cost. Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—I agree. ————