Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4131 (ALL)

TRIPURESH TRIPATHI v. J. A. OLIVER

2015-12-23

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Tripuresh Tripathi, who is a practising lawyer in the High Court, has filed this writ petition in the nature of quo warranto regarding the appointment of Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor of Sam Higginbotton Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences, a Deemed University under the provisions of University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The prayer made in the writ petition is as follows; I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto thereby asking to the opposite party No. 1 Mr. J.A. Oliver, Chancellor of Sam Higginbotton Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences, Deemed University, Naini, Allahabad as to under what authority of law he is holding the office of Chancellor of the respondent institute deemed to be university and to remove him from the office of the Chancellor. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto thereby asking to the opposite party No. 2 Mr. Rajendra Bihari Lal as to under what authority of law he is holding a public office of Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbotton Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences, Deemed University, Naini, Allahabad and to remove him from the office of the Vice-Chancellor. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned Ministries of the Union & the State to hold an enquiry as to how the respondent No. 1 and 2 are continuing in the office of the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the impugned Deemed University against the provisions of the Regulations framed by the UGC. IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent concerned to develop a mechanism and to appoint the officers to monitor the strict compliance of the Act and the rules/regulations so that in future no Vice-Chancellor of any University can function beyond the maximum period fixed by the law and is appointed as per the procedure prescribed by the regulation. V. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice. VI. Allow this writ petition with costs. 2. The writ of quo warranto as against Mr. V. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice. VI. Allow this writ petition with costs. 2. The writ of quo warranto as against Mr. J.A. Oliver, the Chancellor of the respondent University, has been prayed for on the ground that apart from working as Chancellor of the University, he is also the President of the society managing the University which is not permissible under law as the same is violative of Regulation 6.1 of the UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulation 2010. The writ of quo warranto as against Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, the Vice-Chancellor, is being sought on the ground that the provisions contained in 6.2(I)(II) of the Regulations 2010 framed by the University Grants Commission were not followed in making the said appointment and the appointment of the respondent No. 2 Vice-Chancellor having been made in violation of the said Regulations, the writ be accordingly issued. 3. To the said writ petition in question, affidavit has been filed on behalf of institute in question as well as Mr. J.A. Oliver and Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal and therein stand has been taken that the continuance in office is strictly as per the statutory provisions and action of University is fully protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The response so filed has been sought to be rebutted by means of rejoinder-affidavit and, thereafter, on the basis of pleadings that have come forward, arguments have been advanced on following terms. 4. Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, has tried to contend before this Court that University in question is not a minority institution and even if it is accepted to be a minority institution, the university is duty bound to comply with the terms and conditions of UGC Regulations and once admittedly the UGC Regulations have not at all been complied with then in all eventuality this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner and liberate the institution from the aforementioned two persons, who otherwise have no authority to hold the public office in the capacity of Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor of the University concerned. 5. 5. Sri R.A. Akhtar, Advocate, has submitted before this Court that University in question is duty bound to comply with the terms and conditions that have been so issued by the UGC and failure/non-compliance of UGC directions cannot be subscribed and here repeated letters have been written by the UGC but till today the University in question has not responded. 6. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate and Sri J.Nagar, Senior Advocate, have entered appearance on behalf of the institution concerned and private respondents alongwith Sri Amit Negi, Advocate, and it has been sought to be contended that present writ petition on the face of it is a motivated one as petitioner has no concern with the institution in any manner whatsoever and here whatever action has been taken, same are strictly in conformity with the provisions as are contained under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and here both the respondents i.e. Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor are man of repute in the academic field and unnecessarily challenge has been made whereas challenge, so made, on its face value, is not at all liable to succeed and is bound to fail, in view of this, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. After respective arguments have been advanced to set the record straight it is mentioned that earlier the petitioner had filed writ petition No. 1714 (SB) of 2014, Tripuresh Tripathi v. Dr. Rajendra B. Lal and others, before Lucknow Bench of this Court claiming therein the following reliefs; I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto thereby asking to the opposite party No. 1 Mr. Rajendra Bihari Lal as to under what authority of law he is holding a public office of Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbotton Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences (Formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute), Deemed University, Naini, Allahabad and to remove him from the office of the Vice-Chancellor. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned Ministries of the Union & the State to hold an enquiry as to how the respondent No. 1 is continuing in the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the impugned Deemed University from last 14 years continuously in violation of the law which fixes the maximum tenure of 5 years for a person to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor. Iii. Iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent concerned to develop a mechanism and to appoint the officers to monitor the strict compliance of the Act and the rules/regulations so that in future no Vice-Chancellor of any University can function beyond the maximum period fixed by the law and is appointed as per the procedure prescribed by the regulation. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing of the letter of appointment dated 15.3.2000, through which respondent No. 1 has been appointed as the Vice-Chancellor on the ground that the selection for the post of the present Vice-Chancellor was not done in accordance with the provision of the regulation of the University Grants Commission after summoning the same from the concerned respondents. v. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice. vi. Allow this writ petition with costs. 8. The aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file fresh writ petition at Allahabad. The order dated 10.12.2014 passed by this Court, permitting the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to file the same at Allahabad, is reproduced hereunder; “On the matter being taken up today, Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, has raised a preliminary objection qua the territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Lucknow Bench to entertain the writ petition in question. Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he proceeds to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh at Allahabad. Request made is accepted. Accordingly, the present writ petition (PIL) is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file writ petition at Allahabad for the same cause of action." 9. Thereafter, petitioner filed civil misc. writ petition No. 68409 of 2014, Tripuresh Tripathi v. Dr. Rajendra B. Lal and others, before this Court with the prayer, as mentioned in the writ petition filed before Lucknow Bench of this Court and the same was again dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition challenging the by-laws of the Allahabad Agricultural Institute (now Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology & Science) (hereinafter referred to as “AAI”). The order passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh writ petition, reads as under; “The petitioner, who is an Advocate practising in the High Court, has filed this petition in the nature of quo warranto regarding the appointment of respondent No. 1, Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal as the Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbotton Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences1 which has now been declared as a Deemed University by Notification dated 15 March 2000 in exercise of powers conferred under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal has been appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the Institution in breach of the provisions contained in the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 20092. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon Regulation 7.4.0, which deals with the Vice-Chancellor of the Institute. It is submitted that the selection committee was not constituted in accordance with the UGC Regulations and that the term of Vice-Chancellor cannot be for more than five years, while in the present case the Vice-Chancellor was appointed in 2000 till he attains the age of 65 years. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pratik J. Nagar and Sri Amit Negi on behalf of the respondent-Institution has, however, submitted that the present petition should not be entertained for the reason that the petitioner has no locus to file this writ petition and in support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees’ Association, AIR 2006 SC 3106 . It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was made strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of Sam Higginbotton Educational and Charitable Society, contained in Part-A of the Articles of the Association. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University was assailed by one Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, which petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court and the judgment is in Manoj Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India and others, 2007(4) ADJ 286 (DB). It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University was assailed by one Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, which petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court and the judgment is in Manoj Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India and others, 2007(4) ADJ 286 (DB). Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others, 2010 (9) SCC 655 , to support his contention that the petitioner has a locus to file this petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor is contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University is contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the Society. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the provisions contained in the Rules and Regulations are contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations and, therefore, the Regulations will prevail. The petitioner has, however, not challenged the provisions of the Rules and Regulations of the Society as being contrary to the UGC Regulations. We, therefore, in absence of any challenge to the Rules and Regulations of the Society do not consider it appropriate to examine the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, without deciding the submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner does not have a locus to file the writ petition, we dismiss this petition. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition to challenge the Rules and Regulations of the Society. As we have dismissed the petition only on the ground that the Rules and Regulations of the Society have not been challenged, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, if so advised, but leave it open to the respondents to raise the preliminary objection that has been raised by them in this petition about the locus of the petitioner to file the writ petition.” 10. In this backdrop writ petition in question has been filed before this Court wherein as already mentioned above pleadings inter-se parties have been exchanged. 11. As much has been said from the side of the petitioner in reference to the minority status of the institution concerned at the very outset we proceed to look into the backdrop of the fact that as to how the said university in question has come to existence. History of an institution can be best told by the institution itself, and here in the response that has been so filed, the journey undertaken by the institution, till date has been spelled out. The history of the institution is that while working under the North India Mission of Presbyterian Church in Allahabad Christian College, Dr. Sam Higginbottom became deeply involved in the social and economic problems of the people around him and his deep thinking in the matter took him to the conclusion that basic socio-economic problem of India was related to agriculture. Accordingly, the “Allahabad Agricultural Institute” was founded in the year 1910 by the Christian community on the southern bank of river Yamuna in the district of Allahabad under the Leadership of Dr. Sam Higginbottom for improvement of Agricultural Sciences and Technology in India for material and spiritual progress of the Country. 12. The AAI was established in 1910 as a Department of Allahabad Christian College (presently known as Ewing Christian College). In 1912, the Agricultural and Technical Departments of the College were shifted to the present site of the Institute on a 200 acres land acquired/purchased for the purpose of Agricultural College. In April 1913, the Agricultural and Technical Departments were bifurcated from the Arts and Science Departments of the Ewing Christian College under an independent budget. On 24.8.1916, separate council was constituted with the Principal of the College as its Ex-officio Chairman for the management of the Agricultural Department. In 1918, the Agricultural and Technical Department was de-linked from the Ewing Christian College altogether and was named as “Allahabad School of Agriculture”. On 1.2.1919, the School was re-christened as the “Allahabad Agricultural Institute” providing a wider scope for expansion, development and broad based educational management. In the year 1924, three years’ course in Farm Mechanics (restricted to Christians only) was started to prepare students for development of Rural Agricultural Farms. On 1.2.1919, the School was re-christened as the “Allahabad Agricultural Institute” providing a wider scope for expansion, development and broad based educational management. In the year 1924, three years’ course in Farm Mechanics (restricted to Christians only) was started to prepare students for development of Rural Agricultural Farms. In the year 1924 the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh), recognised the AAI for a two years’ Diploma Course in Agriculture. In the year 1932 the University of Allahabad recognised the AAI for B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree. In the year 1934, the Government of India established Imperial Dairy Institute, Bangalore for studies in the field of Dairy Sciences and in the same year it authorised the AAI to start Indian Dairy Diploma Course in Dairy Technology and Animal Husbandry. 13. In the year 1942, the University of Allahabad permitted the AAI to start B.Sc. Classes in Agricultural Engineering, the first degree of its type in the whole of Asia and the third in the world. In the year 1964, the University of Allahabad permitted the AAI to start Post-graduate classes in Agricultural Engineering, Dairy Technology, Agronomy, Agricultural Extension, Agricultural Bio-Chemistry, Animal Science, Horticulture, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology and Plant Pathology and to conduct research work. In the same year, the Institute also started B.Sc. (Home Economics) Course for girls. The AAI was having 600 acres of land on the Southern bank of River Yamuna alongwith well-equipped modern Laboratories, College Buildings, including Research Farms, Research Centres, Hostels, Canteen, Staff Quarters, Play-grounds, Botanical and Fruit Garden, Dairies, Poultries, Piggeries, Goat and Sheep Rearing Sheds, Agricultural Engineering Research Laboratories and well equipped Library on the subjects relating to agriculture, agricultural science and technology, home-economics and education, in view of this, as It has all the trappings and paraphernalia required for an Agricultural and Technical University by Government Order No. 2606/32(4)-1171 (1A)-70 dated 13-6-1973, the Government of Uttar Pradesh constituted a high level committee for re-organisation of agricultural education and research in Uttar Pradesh. The Committee found that the AAI was of the status of an Agricultural and Technological University as it had wide resources and it recommended as an interim measure that the AAI should be raised to the status of an Autonomous College. The Committee found that the AAI was of the status of an Agricultural and Technological University as it had wide resources and it recommended as an interim measure that the AAI should be raised to the status of an Autonomous College. As an associate college of the University of Allahabad, the AAI had its own Board of Studies, duly recognized by the University of Allahabad, which appointed its own examiners and set the papers. The examination schemes were prepared by the Registrar of the Institute and the University used to approve it. The AAI conducted all the examinations in its own campus and through its own resources and personnel. Practically, the entire work of teaching and examination of the AAI was done by the Institute itself, except the conferring of Degree which alone was done by the University of Allahabad. As an associated college of the University of Allahabad the AAI was having eight Colleges, i.e. (i) College of Engineering and Agriculture Technology, (ii) College of Agriculture, (iii) College of Rural Management, (iv) College of Religious Education, (v) College of Health and Environmental Sciences, (vi) College of Home Economics and Women’s Development, (vii) College of Continuing and Non-Formal Education and (viii) College of Dairy Technology and Animal Husbandry. The University of Allahabad as back as in the year 1978 requested the State Government to recognize the AAI as a Professional Post-graduate College under Section 38(3) of U.P. State Universities Act 1973 read with Statute 13.01 of the First Statutes of University of Allahabad, 1976, so that necessary privileges and benefits may be extended to it. Later on, the Academic Council of the University of Allahabad in its meeting held on 23.7.1988 (Resolution No. 82) approved the Status of the AAI as a Professional Post-graduate College. The resolution passed by the Academic Council of the University of Allahabad reads as under : “82. Later on, the Academic Council of the University of Allahabad in its meeting held on 23.7.1988 (Resolution No. 82) approved the Status of the AAI as a Professional Post-graduate College. The resolution passed by the Academic Council of the University of Allahabad reads as under : “82. The Council considered the letter dated 23.6.88 of the Manager, Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad, which requests that “the Institute which is a Minority Christian Institute be given the status of an Associated Professional Post-graduate Institution alike Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, so that the Institute gets all such facilities as is given to Professional Institutions.” “It was resolved that the proposal of the Manager, Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini, be accepted and the Institute which is minority Christian Institute be given the status of an Associated Professional Post-graduate Institution alike Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, and recommends it to the Executive Council.” 14. Subsequently the matter was taken up by the Executive Council of the University of Allahabad and the Executive Council in its meeting dated 23.11.1991 (Resolution No. 172) unanimously approved the recommendation of the Academic Council for giving the status of an Associated Professional Post-gradudate Institution alike Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, to the Allahabad Agricultural Institute and for declaring an institution as a Deemed to be University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, the University Grants Commission had framed Guidelines in the year 1992. It has been considered to be a premier and renowned minority institution of the country by the Apex Court in the case of St. Stephen’s College v. The University of Delhi, 1992 (I) SCC 558 (on page 574). Thereafter, in accordance with the Guidelines of 1992 (for declaring an institution to be a Deemed to be University) the AAI submitted its proposal for being declared a Deemed to be a University on 30.8.1994. This proposal was forwarded by the Ministry of Human Resource Development to the University Grants Commission for consideration. Paragraph 15 of the proposal submitted by the AAI to Ministry of Human Resource Development/University Grants Commission reads as under : “15. Being a Christian Minority Professional Institute under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, the Institute would be prepared to revise its Memorandum of Association and Article of Association as long as it is not repugnant to its Minority Character. Being a Christian Minority Professional Institute under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, the Institute would be prepared to revise its Memorandum of Association and Article of Association as long as it is not repugnant to its Minority Character. The Allahabad Agricultural Institute is an All India Christian Institute and it is an Ecumenical Heritage of Christians of India, and therefore, it requires to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.” 15. The State of Uttar Pradesh by its letter No. 2348/12-8-96-900(7)/94, dated 16th October 1996 wrote to the Secretary, University Grants Commission that it has ‘’No Objection’ to the Institute being declared a Deemed to be a University. The State Government further assured the University Grants Commission that it shall continue with the grant for the sanctioned posts, even after the grant of Deemed University Status. Pursuant to the submission of proposal by the AAI for being declared a Deemed to be a University, the Expert Team of the University Grants Commission visited the AAI on 15th & 16th May, 1997. The Expert Committee examined the proposal, checked all physical/infrastructural and academic Facilities available in the Allahabad Agricultural Institute AAI of the infrastructural facilities and academic achievements of the AAI, made the following recommendations: “1. From the observations already made, it is evident that the Allahabad Agricultural Institute satisfies the norms laid down by the U.G.C. to be eligible for Deemed University status. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Deemed University status be conferred on Allahabad Agricultural Institute after getting the Memorandum of Association as per UGC guidelines duly approved. 2. The Institute should provide evidence that the endowment should verify whether the deposit amount of Rs. 20 lakhs in USA is in the name of the Institute approved by the RBI. Alternatively Institute should raise fixed deposit from Rs. 30 lakh as at present to Rs. 50 lakh as per the requirement.” 16. As per the recommendation of the Expert Committee, the AAI revised its Memorandum and Articles of Association, Rules etc. alongwith evidence of financial security such as endowment etc. and submitted the same to the University Grants Commission on 15.4.1998. 30 lakh as at present to Rs. 50 lakh as per the requirement.” 16. As per the recommendation of the Expert Committee, the AAI revised its Memorandum and Articles of Association, Rules etc. alongwith evidence of financial security such as endowment etc. and submitted the same to the University Grants Commission on 15.4.1998. It also clearly mentioned in paragraph (iv) of the communication that “That the UGC expert team visited the Institute and it is submitted that the team was fully satisfied as the Institute fulfills all academic and infrastructural requirements as per UGC norms for Deemed University. The Institute has also submitted revised constitution (Memorandum of Association and Articles) as per UGC guidelines and under Article 30(I) of the Constitution of India “. Article VIII of the revised Memorandum of Association/Bye-laws submitted by the AAI to the University Grants Commission clearly speaks of protecting the rights of Minority Institution as guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. This Article VIII of the revised Memorandum of Association is reproduced hereinunder for convenient perusal of the Hon’ble Court : “In exercise of the power and duties enumerated above the Board of Directors shall act in a manner consistent with the provisions of the relevant UGC Act/any other Act or order of Central/State Government so far as they may be applicable and are not repugnant to provisions of the Memorandum of the Association and the Articles of Associations of the Society, and rights of the Christian Mnority Educational Institution as guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.” 17. State of Uttar Pradesh by its letter No. 3234/12-8-97-900[7] 94 D.U., dated December 9th, 1997, addressed to the Ministry of Human Resource Development clearly stated that - “1- ^bykgkckn ,xzhdYpjy bULVhV~;wV uSuh] bykgkckn dks ^^MhEM ;wfuoflZVh** dk ntkZ nsus dk izLrko ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj ds fopkjk/khu gSA 2- fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx }kjk mDr laLFkku dks ^^MhEM ;wfuoflZVh** dk Lrj nsus ds lEcU/k esa viuh vk[;k@laLrqfr dnkfpr ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; dks miyC/k djk nh x;h gksxhA 3- mŸkj jkT; izns'k ljdkj }kjk mDr laLFkku dks MhEM fo'ofo|ky; dk Lrj nsus ds lEcU/k esa vukifŸk ns nh xbZ gSA ,rn~ fo"k;d fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx dks lEcksf/kr mRrj izns'k 'kklu ds i=kad 2348@12&8&97&900¼7½@94] fnukad 17 tqykbZ] 1997 dh izfr lqyHk lanHkZ gsrq layXu gSA 4- mDr laLFkku dks Hkkjr dk lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 30¼1½] ds v/khu vYila[;d oxZ dh laLFkk ?kksf"kr djus ds lEcU/k esa mŸkj izns'k 'kklu ds f'k{kk ¼11½] vuqHkkx ds i=kad 4894@15&80&¼11½] fnukad 12&9&80 dh izfr Hkh layXu gSA vr% vki ls vuqjks/k gS fd mDr laLFkku dks MhEM fo'ofo|ky; dk Lrj iznku djus ds lEcU/k esa Hkkjr ljdkj ds fu.kZ; ls mŸkj izns'k 'kklu dks ;Fkk'kh?kz voxr djkus dk d"V djsaA** 18. On the basis of the (i) revised Memorandum and Articles of Association, (ii) No Objection Certificate by the State Government and (iii) Financial assurance by the State Government the University Grants Commission considered the recommendations of the Expert Committee and passed the following resolution on 17.4.1998 : “1. The Commission noted that the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad fully met the criteria for grant of Deemed to be University status under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956. However, since the Institute has claimed minority status, the Ministry of Human Resource Development may have the matter of reservations for teachers, non- teaching staff and students examined. The Commission understands that the question as to applicability of reservations of SC’s/ST’s in Institutes having minority status, and seeking financial assistance from the Government, is one of the issues pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Commission recommends that the Ministry may consider granting Deemed to be University status to Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad subject to the condition that any decision of the Supreme Court would be binding on the Institute. 2. The Commission recommends that the Ministry may consider granting Deemed to be University status to Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad subject to the condition that any decision of the Supreme Court would be binding on the Institute. 2. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh will provide Plan and Non-Plan development assistance to this Institute only upto the present level of commitments including any increase in pay, DA, and other allowances. The Institute has assured that it will be able to take care of its expansion in the future, both in terms of infrastructure and post. Even now the State Government does not meet fully the expenditure. The UGC will not provide any Plan or Non-Plan grant to the Institute. This has also been clarified to the Institute.” 19. State of Uttar Pradesh by its letter No. 942/12-8-98-900[7] 94 T.C., dated May 30th, 1998, addressed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission submitted the financial assurance for the teaching and non-teaching staff regarding Government approved posts and assuring the UGC that the Institute is a Christian Minority Institution and upon the declaration of Deemed University status it shall remain as a Minority Institution. The contents of the letter are reproduced hereunder : ^^ mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la0-& 2028@12&8&97&900¼7½@94] fnukad 17&7&97 ,oa 3234@12&8&98] fnukad 7&4&98 ds Øe esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd mDr laLFkku Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 30¼1½ ds v/khu vYila[;d oxZ dh laLFkk ?kksf”kr gS rFkk mŸkj izns'k 'kklu ds f'k{kk&11 vuqHkkx ds i=kad 4894@15&80¼11½] fnukad 12&9&80 }kjk bl laLFkku dks vYila[;d laLFkku ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA pw¡fd ;g laLFkku fØf'p;u leqnk; }kjk tks /keZ ij vk/kkfjr vYila[;d oxZ gS }kjk LFkkfir rFkk iz'kkflr laLFkk gS vr% MhEM ;wfuoflZVh cuus ij Hkh ;g laLFkku vYila[;d laLFkku gh jgsxkA vYila[;d laLFkku gksus ds dkj.k ;g laLFkku vkj{k.k izkfo/kkuksa dh ck/;rk ls eqDr gSA 2- 'kklu ds mi;qZDr i=ksa }kjk ;g lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd vuqeksfnr inksa ij fu;ekuqlkj osru HkRrsa isa'ku vkfn ds fy, 'kklu ls vuqnku fn;k tkrk jgsxkA blh izdkj Hkfo"; esa 'kklu dh vuqefr ls bl laLFkku esa u;s ikB~;Øe@foHkkx izkjEHk fd;s tkus ij 'kklu }kjk vuqeksfnr inksa ij vkus okys O;;Hkkj gsrq fu;ekuqlkj vuqnku fn;k tk;sxkA 3- Ñi;k bl laLFkku dks MhEM ;wfuoflZVh ?kksf”kr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa ;Fkk'kh?kz dk;Zokgh djus dk d"V djsaA** 20. On 9.6.1998, the University Grants Commission recommended that the AAI (now Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences) be declared as a ‘’Deemed to be University’. It was specifically stated in the said letter that the Memorandum of Association of the AAI has been drawn in accordance with the UGC Model Memorandum of Association/Rules excepting the right to administer, admission policy and reservation of SCs/STs under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, on recommendation made by the University Grants Commission, the Central Government by notification dated 15.3.2000 declared the AAI to be a Deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The University Grants Commission in its 399th meeting held on 1.11.2001 has declared that the AAI (now Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences) still retains its minority status. Relevant extract of the minutes of meeting dated 1.11.2001 is reproduced hereunder : “Out of the 51 existing deemed universities only the following two institutions are enjoying the minority status : 1. Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad (Christian Minority Institution) 2. Satyabhama Institute of Science & Technology, Chennai (Christian Minority Institution) 21. All these facts, that have been stated above, would go to show that the issue that has been raised on behalf of petitioner that the institution in question cannot be accepted as a minority institution, cannot be accepted by us for the simple reason that Apex Court in paragraph 14 of St. Stephen’s College (supra) clearly proceeded to make a mention that this is a professional college which offers several courses of study in Agricultural Sciences and therein it has also been mentioned that It is undisputedly an institution established and administered by the Christian religious minority and in 1911 it was founded by Christians under the leadership of Dr. Sam Higginbottom. Stephen’s College (supra) clearly proceeded to make a mention that this is a professional college which offers several courses of study in Agricultural Sciences and therein it has also been mentioned that It is undisputedly an institution established and administered by the Christian religious minority and in 1911 it was founded by Christians under the leadership of Dr. Sam Higginbottom. Once there is already a declaration by the Apex Court pertaining to the status of the institution in question and records in question are speaking for itself that it has been established by members of minority community and its affair is being administered by members of minority community, then such collateral challenge without any foundation and basis, cannot be accepted by this Court and this much fact has to be accepted that AAI has been established by minorities and is being administered by minorities and as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of S. Azeez Basha and another v. Union of India, 1968 (1) SCR 833 / AIR 1968 SC 662 , the minorities have a right to establish institutions and establishment of institution includes universities also. In paragraph 21 of the aforementioned judgment a categorical mention has been made that the words “educational institutions” are of very wide import and would include a university also and therein the view of the Apex Court is that a religious minority has the right to establish a university under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, thus, cannot be disputed. The passing arguments, that have been so advanced before us, that minorities have no right to establish University and the only right that has been conferred to them is to open affiliated college, as per the provisions of National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act 2004, has also no substance, for the reason that said Act has come into force w.e.f. 7.1.2005 whereas AAI, on the recommendation of University Grants Commission, the Central Government by means of notification dated 15.3.2000 has declared the same as Deemed University under Section 3 of University Grants Commission Act. Even otherwise, National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act 2004 confers right to minority educational institution to seek affiliation to any university of its choice subject to such affiliation being permissible within the Act under which the said university is established. Even otherwise, National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act 2004 confers right to minority educational institution to seek affiliation to any university of its choice subject to such affiliation being permissible within the Act under which the said university is established. Affiliation is a statutory concept and may be obtained on the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therefore by a statute. Provisions of National Commission for Minority Institution Act 2004 in no way curbs the right of minorities to establish university also, and as far as establishment of university is concerned said exercise is to be undertaken in consonance with the provisions, as contained under University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Accordingly, the off hand submission that AAI has not been established and is not being administered by members of minority community, cannot be accepted by us and in our considered opinion it is a closed chapter that cannot be permitted to be reopened in such casual manner as there is nothing on record to reopen the same rather it is contrarily established from the pleadings and evidence brought on record that it has been established by the minorities and same is being administered by the minorities and with the passage of time the institution in question has grown up and ultimately reached to the status of University as provided for under clause (f) of Section 2 of UGC Act, 1956. 22. After the said issue in question has been answered the next issue is in reference of continuance of Mr. J.A. Oliver as Chancellor of the university concerned. The challenge that is being made is that Mr. J.A. Oliver by virtue of being President of the Society is disqualified to function as Chancellor of Sam Higginbotton Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences, a Deemed University, Naini at Allahabad. 23. In order to answer such an issue, we will have to go through the Memorandum and Article of Association of AAI which shows that after the institution in question has been accepted and declared as Deemed University a revised memorandum and articles of association has been submitted by the AAI to the UGC alongwith its letter dated 15.4.1998 and same became the First Constitution of the Allahabad Agriculture Institute Deemed-to-be-University. At the point of time when the status of Deemed University has been accorded by UGC a categorical mention has been made that the Chairman of the Society shall be the President of the Deemed University. Article XVIII B. of the Constitution of the AAI, which deals with the powers and duties of the President of the Board of Directors, AAI, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference; “Article XVIII B.—Powers and duties of the President. The Chairman of the Board of Directors, shall be President of the Deemed University who by virtue of his office be the head of the Institute and shall when present preside over meetings of the Executive Council and the convocations of the Institute/Deemed University. He shall be appointed by the Board of Directors and shall hold office for a period of 3 years and shall be eligible for reappointment.” 24. In the year 1999 the University Grants Commission revised the Guidelines for declaring an institution to be a Deemed University. These Guidelines came into force in May, 2000 after the same were published in the Official Gazette of the Government of India. Accordingly, the Allahabad Agricultural Institute submitted an amended Constitution, keeping in view the amendments as proposed by the University Grants Commission in the Revised Guidelines. The amended Constitution was also approved by the University Grants Commission. Article XIX-B of the Constitution of Board of Directors, Allahabad Agricultural Institute deals with the powers and duties of the Chancellor and provides that the Chairman of the Board of Directors, Allahabad Agricultural Institute shall be the Chancellor of the Deemed University. Article XIX-B of the Constitution of Board of Directors, is as follows : “Article XIX B.—Powers and duties of the Chancellor. The Chairman of the Board of Directors, shall be appointed as Chancellor of the Deemed University by the Society, who by virtue of his office be the head of the Institute and shall when present preside over convocations of the Institute/Deemed University and perform other functions appropriate to his office. He shall be appointed by the Board of Directors and shall hold the office for a period of 5 years and shall be eligible for reappointment.” 25. Challenge to the appointment of Mr. He shall be appointed by the Board of Directors and shall hold the office for a period of 5 years and shall be eligible for reappointment.” 25. Challenge to the appointment of Mr. J.A. Oliver has been made on the ground that clause 5.02 of the Regulations framed by the UGC that deals with the appointment of Chancellor of a Deemed University has come into force in July 2010 and as per the aforementioned regulations, that has come into force, by no stretch of imagination Mr. J.A. Oliver could have been appointed as Chancellor, inasmuch as, he happens to be the Chairman of the Society and under amended regulations the Chancellor should neither be a member of the Society or the Trust nor a close relative of the President of the Society or the Trust. 26. In order to appreciate the respective arguments relevant provisions of UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulation 2010 framed by notification dated 21.5.2010 is to regulate, in an orderly manner, the process of declaration of institutions as deemed to be universities; preventing institutions of dubious quality from being so declared; and, further to maintain quality of higher education imparted by institutions deemed to be universities consistent with the ideals of the concept of a university; the University Grants Commission in exercise of powers conferred under clauses (f) & (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, has proceeded to make following regulations; 1.0 Short Title, Application and Commencement : 1.1 These Regulations may be called the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010. 1.2 These Regulations shall apply to every institution seeking declaration as an institution deemed to be university under the Act as also, albeit prospectively, to an institution which has been declared as an institution deemed to be university under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. 1.3 They shall come into force with effect from the date of their notification in the Official Gazette. 1.3 They shall come into force with effect from the date of their notification in the Official Gazette. “5.0 Governance System for an Institution to be Declared as an Institution Deemed to be University: An institution to be declared as a deemed to be university shall adhere to the following criteria: 5.1 The proposed institution deemed to be university shall be registered either as a not-for profit Society under the Societies Registration Act, or as a not-for profit Trust under the Public Trust Act with the Society/Trust strictly in accordance with the following provisions. 5.2 Among the authorities of the deemed to be universities, there shall be a Chancellor who shall be appointed by the sponsoring society or the sponsoring Trust. He /she shall be an eminent educationist or a distinguished public figure other than the President of the sponsoring society or his/her close relatives. 5.3 There shall be no position of Pro-Chancellor(s). 5.4 The highest governing body of the deemed to be university shall be a Board of Management to be headed by the Vice-Chancellor or a distinguished academic. This body shall consist of a minimum of ten and a maximum of twelve members. 5.5 The Board of Management of the institution shall be independent of the Trust (or) Society with full autonomy to perform its academic and administrative responsibilities. The number of representative(s)/nominee(s) of the trust (or) society on the Board of Management shall be limited to a maximum of two. 5.6 The Board of Management shall consist of eminent persons capable of contributing to and upholding university ideals and traditions. 5.7 There shall be a Board of Management consisting of the following : (i) Vice-Chancellor..... .....Chairperson (ii) Pro Vice-Chancellor (wherever applicable) (iii) Deans of Faculties not exceeding two (by rotation based on seniority) (iv) Three eminent academics as nominated by the Chancellor (v) One eminent academic to be nominated by the Central Government in consultation with UGC (vi) Two teachers (from Professors, Associate Professors) by rotation based on seniority (vii) One nominee of the sponsoring Society (viii) The Registrar, who shall be the Secretary The term of membership of the Board of Management and its powers are as shown in Annexure 1. 5.8 The Vice-Chancellor shall be an eminent academic and shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of a Search-cum-Selection Committee consisting of a nominee of the Government, who shall be nominated in consultation with UGC, a nominee of the Chancellor and that of Board of Management. The Committee shall be chaired by the nominee of the Board of Management. 5.9 All other statutory bodies of the deemed to be university shall be as described in Annexure 2" 27. Alongwith the said regulations in question Annexure-2 deals with the other authorities of the institution deemed to be university. Under the aforementioned annexure following has been declared to be other authorities of the institution deemed to be university; (i) Academic Council (ii) Planning and Monitoring Board (iii) Finance Committee (iv) Board of Studies & (v) such other authorities as may be declared by the Rules to be authorities of the institution deemed to be university. Paragraph 6.0 provides for Officers of the institution deemed to be university, which is as follows; 6.0 Officers of the Institution Deemed to be University The following shall be the officers of the Institution deemed to be university: (a) Chancellor (b) Vice-Chancellor (c) Pro Vice-Chancellor (d) Registrar (e) Finance Officer (f) Controller of Examinations (g) Dean of Faculties (h) Head of Department (i) Such other officers as may be prescribed in the Rules of the institution deemed to be university. 6.1 Chancellor The Institution deemed to be university shall have a Chancellor who shall, when present, preside over the convocations of the Institution deemed to be university but shall not be the Chief Executive Officer. The Chancellor shall be appointed by the Sponsoring Society or Trust, shall hold office for a period of 5 years and shall be eligible for one more term. The Chancellor shall neither be a member of the Society or the Trust nor a close relative of the President of the Society or the Trust. Where power is conferred upon the Chancellor to nominate persons to authorities, he/she shall, to the extent necessary, nominate persons to represent the various interests for the furtherance of the objectives of the Institutions deemed to be university. 6.2 Vice-Chancellor (I) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time salaried officer of the Institution deemed to be university and shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of three names suggested by a Search-cum-Selection Committee. 6.2 Vice-Chancellor (I) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time salaried officer of the Institution deemed to be university and shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of three names suggested by a Search-cum-Selection Committee. The composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be : I. A nominee of the Chancellor 2. A nominee of Central Government; who shall be an eminent academic nominated by the Government in consultation with the UGC 3. A nominee of Board of Management (ii) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of 5 years. He shall be eligible for a second term, provided that in no case shall he hold office beyond the age of 70 years. Provided that notwithstanding the expiry of the said period of 5 years, he/she may continue in office for not more than six months or till his/her successor is appointed and the latter assumes office, whichever, is earlier. (iii) In case of the office of the Vice-Chancellor becoming vacant due to death, resignation or otherwise and in case of his/her absence due to illness or any other cause, the Pro Vice-Chancellor, and in his/her absence, the Senior most Dean or, if there is no Dean, the senior most Professor shall perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor until a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed, or the existing Vice-Chancellor resumes duties, as the case may be. 6.3 Powers of the Vice-Chancellor (i) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Principal Executive Officer of the Institution deemed to be university and shall exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the Institution deemed to be university and shall be mainly responsible for implementation of the decisions of all the authorities of the Institution Deemed to be University. (ii) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Management, the Academic Council, the Finance Committee, the Planning & Monitoring Board and Selection Committees. (iii) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to convene or cause to be convened meeting of the various authorities of the Institution deemed to be university. (ii) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Management, the Academic Council, the Finance Committee, the Planning & Monitoring Board and Selection Committees. (iii) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to convene or cause to be convened meeting of the various authorities of the Institution deemed to be university. (iv) The Vice-Chancellor may, if he/she is of the opinion that immediate action is called for on any matter, he/shall exercise any power conferred upon any authority of the Institution deemed to be university under its Regulations and Rules, and take such action or proceed to take such action and shall report to the authority concerned on the action taken by him/her on such matters. Provided that if the authority concerned as mentioned in clause (ii) above is of the opinion that such action ought not to have been taken, it may refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final. Provided further that if any person in the service of the Institution deemed to be university is aggrieved by the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under the said clause, he/she shall have the right to appeal against such decision to the Board of Management within 30 days from the date on which such action is communicated to him/her and thereupon the Board of Management shall call the meeting in a subsequent meeting and may confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor. (v) It shall be the duty of the Vice-chancellor to ensure that, Regulations, and Rules of the Institution deemed to be university are duly observed and implemented and he/she shall have all the necessary powers in this regard. (vi) All powers relating to the proper maintenance and discipline of the Institution deemed to be university shall be vested in the Vice-Chancellor. (vii) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to re-delegate some of his powers to any of his/her subordinate officers with the concurrence and approval of the Board of Management. (viii) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise all other powers as may be delegated to him/her by the Board of Management. (ix) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed by the Regulations, Rules and Bye-Laws. (viii) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise all other powers as may be delegated to him/her by the Board of Management. (ix) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed by the Regulations, Rules and Bye-Laws. 9.0 Dispute as to Membership: If any question arises, whether any person has been duly nominated or appointed, as or is entitled to be member of any authority or any committee of the institution deemed to be university, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. 14. Disqualification (a) ........... (b) If any question arises as to whether a person is or has been subjected to any disqualification mentioned above, the question shall be referred for the decision to the Chancellor and his decision shall be final.” 28. A bare perusal of the provisions quoted above would go to show that an institution deemed to be university shall have a Chancellor, who shall, when present, preside over the convocations of the Institution Deemed to be University but shall not be the Chief Executive Officer. The Chancellor shall be appointed by the Sponsoring Society or Trust shall hold office for a period of 5 years and shall be eligible for one more term. The Chancellor shall neither be a member of the Society or the Trust nor a close relative of the President of the Society or the Trust, whereas power is conferred upon the Chancellor to nominate persons to authorities and to the extent necessary, nominate persons to represent the various interests for the furtherance of the objectives of the Institutions Deemed to be University. 29. Chancellor, apart from the same, has been conferred with the authority to decide the dispute if any question arises, whether any person has been duly nominated or appointed, as or is entitled to be a member of any authority or any committee of the institution deemed to be university, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. Chancellor additionally has been conferred with the authority to decide the issue of disqualification. 30. Chancellor additionally has been conferred with the authority to decide the issue of disqualification. 30. The challenge that is being made to the appointment of Chancellor, in the present case, is based on the premises that the Chancellor has to be appointed by the Sponsoring Society/Trust and same has been hedged with the condition that Chancellor shall neither be a member of the Society or the Trust nor a close relative of the President of the Society or the Trust and here the Chancellor appointed suffers from such a disqualification, as such, intervention be made. 31. The stand that has been taken in the writ petition is being resisted on behalf of AAI by submitting that clause 5.02 of the Regulations framed by the UGC, which deals with the appointment of Chancellor of a Deemed University and came into force in July 2010, contravenes the right of Minority Educational Institutions as guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India in so far as right to administer is concerned, inasmuch as, the said clause prohibits the appointment of the President of the Sponsoring Society to be appointed as Chancellor of the Deemed University whereas the President of the Society is considered as a person who is well versed with the objects of the Society and can safeguard the minority rights and not only this same mandatorily imposes an outsider to interfere/intervene in the right to administer. 32. The issue, that has been raised in the present case, is as to whether such a provision has the effect of infringing Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India i.e. right to administer. In the present case what we find from the scheme of things provided for that as far as Chancellor is concerned, at the point of time, when he is present he would preside over the convocations of the Institution Deemed to be University but he is not at all the Chief Executive Officer and under the scheme of things provided for one of the essential function of the Chancellor is to nominate persons to authorities and resolve dispute as to whether any person has been dully nominated or appointed as or is entitled to be a member of any authority or any committee of the institution deemed to be university and on the matter being referred to the Chancellor his decision has to be accepted as final and binding. Chancellor has been conferred with the authority to decide the issue of disqualification also. Once such is the authority of the Chancellor, in the present scheme of things and right to administer has been conferred upon the minorities, who have proceeded to establish the university concerned, does this provision, offends right to administer as guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution to the minorities. In order to answer such an issue, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnatka and others, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , is being looked into that has been followed in the case of Sindhi Educational Society and another v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and others, 2010 (8) SCC 49. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below; “91. In T.M.A. Pai’s case (supra) the right to establish an institution is provided. The Court held that the right to establish an institution is provided in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Such right, however, is subject to reasonable restriction, which may be brought about in terms of clause (6) thereof. Further, that minority, whether based on religion or language, however, has a fundamental right to establish and administer educational institution of its own choice under Article 30(1). 92. The right under clause (1) of Article 30 is not absolute but subject to reasonable restrictions which, inter alia, may be framed having regard to the public interest and national interest of the country. Regulation can also be framed to prevent mal-administration as well as for laying down standards of education, teaching, maintenance of discipline, public order, health, morality etc. It is also well-settled that a minority institution does not cease to be so, the moment grant-in-aid is received by the institution. An aided minority education institution, therefore, would be entitled to have the right of admission of students belonging to the minority group and, at the same time, would be required to admit a reasonable extent of non-minority students, to the extent, that the right in Article 30(1) is not substantially impaired and further, the citizen’s right under Article 29 (2) is not infringed.