Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1164 (GUJ)

Dharamsinh Desai Unviersity v. State Of Gujarat

2022-09-30

BHARGAV D.KARIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval C. Dave assisted by learned advocate Mr. P.A. Jadeja for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trupesh Kathiria for the respondent State. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to proceed on the premise that each of the concerned post-graduate courses in the discipline of Engineering in the set-up of the petitioner, being the courses leading to the educational qualification of M.Tech. in Chemical Engineering, M.Tech. in Surface Science and Nanotechnology in Chemical Engineering, M.Tech. in Geotechnical Engineering in Civil Engineering and M.Tech. in Structural Engineering in Civil Engineering; is having total intake of 18 seats per annum on the pattern of self-financing only and not a single seat in respect of the said post-graduate courses in the set-up of the petitioner is available on the pattern of grant-in-aid. b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to admit any students in respect of the aforesaid post-graduate courses in the set-up of the petitioner, being the courses leading to the educational qualification of M.Tech. in Chemical Engineering, M.Tech. in Surface Science and Nanotechnology in Chemical Engineering, M.Tech. in Geotechnical Engineering in Civil Engineering and M.Tech. in Structural Engineering in Civil Engineering; on the pattern of grant-in-aid. c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the respondents from precipitating any course of action of any nature for admitting any student in respect of the aforesaid postgraduate courses in the set-up of the petitioner, being the courses leading to the educational qualification of M.Tech. in Chemical Engineering, M.Tech. in Surface Science and Nanotechnology in Chemical Engineering, M.Tech. in Geotechnical Engineering in Civil Engineering and M.Tech. in Structural Engineering in Civil Engineering; on the pattern of grant-in-aid and thereupon, be pleased to further direct the respondents to grant admissions in respect of the said post-graduate courses only on the pattern of self-financing. in Chemical Engineering, M.Tech. in Surface Science and Nanotechnology in Chemical Engineering, M.Tech. in Geotechnical Engineering in Civil Engineering and M.Tech. in Structural Engineering in Civil Engineering; on the pattern of grant-in-aid and thereupon, be pleased to further direct the respondents to grant admissions in respect of the said post-graduate courses only on the pattern of self-financing. d) Such other and further relief as Your Lordships may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the petitioner. e) Costs of this petition be provided for to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1) The petitioner is a University duly established by the State Legislation under The Dharamsinh Desai University Act, 2005 (For short “the Act, 2005”). The petitioner is engaged in imparting education in the discipline of Engineering at the level of Graduation and Post-Graduation. The discipline of Engineering in which the petitioner is engaged qualifies as the Technical courses within the meaning of the Gujarat Professional Technical Education Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (For short, “the Act, 2007”) 3.2) Prior to the establishment of the petitioner as a University, the institution in the name and style of Dharamsinh Desai Institute of Technology (For short “DDIT”) came to be established in the year 1968 for imparting education in the discipline of engineering at various levels. In the year 1990, the University Grants Commission, considering the development made by DDIT and its contribution in the field of engineering, accorded the status of autonomous institution to DDIT. Thereafter in the year 2000, DDIT was declared as a deemed university by the University Grants Commission. In the year 2005, the legislature of the State of Gujarat enacted the Act, 2005 for establishing the petitioner as private University. Upon the establishment of the petitioner as University, the courses in the discipline of engineering run by the DDIT came to be taken over by the petitioner. In the year 2005, the petitioner was imparting education in the disciplines of Chemical Engineering and Civil Engineering at the level of Post Graduation. 3.3) It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time when DDIT was engaged for imparting education in the disciplines of Chemical and Civil Engineering at the level of Post-Graduation, it was with an understanding that DDIT would be considered as eligible for grant-in-aid by respondent nos. 3.3) It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time when DDIT was engaged for imparting education in the disciplines of Chemical and Civil Engineering at the level of Post-Graduation, it was with an understanding that DDIT would be considered as eligible for grant-in-aid by respondent nos. 1 – The Principal Secretary, Education department and respondent no.2- The Commissionerate of Technical Education. However, no such grant in respect of same was made available to DDIT in the erstwhile status. However by pursuing respondent nos. 1 and 2 for grant-in-aid, DDIT continued to impart education at the level of Post Graduation in the said disciplines of Engineering by managing its own funds in absence of grant-in-aid. The situation so prevailing continued even after the petitioner acquired the status of the University. 3.4) On 22nd December, 2009 the petitioner addressed a communication to respondent no.2 seeking sanction of the faculties referred to therein on the basis of the workload for the said courses so that based upon the same, the grant-in-aid could be claimed by the petitioner from respondent no.1 in respect of the Post Graduate Courses. 3.5) In response to the said letter, the petitioner received a communication dated 12.03.2010 from the office of respondent no.2 wherein certain clarifications came to be sought from the petitioner with reference to the Post Graduate courses. 3.6) The petitioner vide communication dated 23.03.2010 furnished requisite information to the office of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 addressed letter dated 29.04.2010 to the petitioner conveying that in view of provisions of section 3(4) of the Act, 2005, the petitioner would not be eligible for grant in respect of the Post Graduate courses and therefore, it would not be possible to accede to the request of the petitioner for grant-in-aid in respect of the said Post Graduate courses. 3.7) The petitioner therefore, continued to run the Post Graduate courses on the pattern of self-financing which is also called the Cost Based System of Education charging fees from the students on the basis of the cost incurred by the petitioner and not on the basis of prescribed reduced fees for the grant-in-aid colleges. 3.8) The petitioner thereafter informed respondent no.3- The Admission Committee for Professional Courses not to grant admission in respect of Post Graduate courses to the concerned students on the pattern of grant-in-aid but to grant the same on the pattern of self-financing. 3.8) The petitioner thereafter informed respondent no.3- The Admission Committee for Professional Courses not to grant admission in respect of Post Graduate courses to the concerned students on the pattern of grant-in-aid but to grant the same on the pattern of self-financing. Respondent no.3, however, did not grant any admission to the Post Graduate courses for the academic year 2011- 2012 either on the pattern of grant-in-aid or on the pattern of self-financing. Resultantly, all seats for the said course remained vacant for the academic year 2011-2012. 3.9) The petitioner vide communication dated 31.5.2012 addressed to respondent no.3 clarified that the Post Graduate courses run by the petitioner were only on the pattern of self financing and not on the pattern of grant-in-aid. It is the case of the petitioner that despite above clarification, respondent no.3 granted admission in respect of the Post Graduate courses maintaining that the same are on the pattern of grant-in-aid. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner refused to accept the admission in absence of grant-in-aid, the petitioner was again persuaded by respondent nos.1 and 2 to accept the admission on the pattern of grant-in-aid for the academic year 2012-2013 with the understanding that for the purpose of offsetting the financial loss going to be caused to the petitioner, the petitioner would be permitted to have admission in respect of Post Graduate courses in equal number of pattern of self-financing and from the next academic year, things would be set right in advance. The petitioner reluctantly accepted such admissions granted on the pattern of grant-in-aid by respondent no.3 and accepted additional admissions for the Post Graduate courses in equal number on the pattern of self financing for the year 2012-2013. 3.10) The petitioner in its communication dated 9.05.2013 clarified that Post Graduate courses in the set up of the petitioner are on the pattern of self-financing and each one of them is having intake of only 18 students per annum. 3.11) The petitioner however, received a communication dated 26.06.2013 from respondent no.3 seeking clarification of the petitioner as to why the details with regard to Post-Graduate courses submitted vide communication dated 9.05.2013 is not containing any information with regard to the seats available for the said courses on the pattern of grant-in-aid. 3.11) The petitioner however, received a communication dated 26.06.2013 from respondent no.3 seeking clarification of the petitioner as to why the details with regard to Post-Graduate courses submitted vide communication dated 9.05.2013 is not containing any information with regard to the seats available for the said courses on the pattern of grant-in-aid. 3.12) In response to said communication, the petitioner vide communication dated 15.07.2013 clarified that in absence of grant-in-aid from respondent no.1, it would not be possible for the petitioner to offer the Post Graduate courses on the pattern of grant-in-aid and therefore, respondent no.3 should not grant any admission in respect of Post Graduate courses by treating the same on the pattern of grant-in-aid for the academic year 2013-2014. 3.13) Respondent no.3 thereafter addressed communication dated 5.8.2013 to the petitioner stating that in absence of necessary clarification from respondent nos. 1 and 2, it would not be possible for respondent no.3 to treat the Post Graduate courses only on the pattern of self-financing and hence respondent no.3 would follow the pattern of admissions in respect of the Post Graduate courses on the lines of the academic year 2012-2013 and accordingly, admissions in respect of the Post Graduate courses for the academic year 2013-2014 would be granted on the pattern of grant-in-aid and self financing by treating the intake in respect of the Post Graduate courses on the lines of the academic year 2012-2013. 3.14) The petitioner vide communication dated 5.08.2013 declined to subscribe to the stand taken by respondent no.3. 3.15) The petitioner thereafter received notice dated 13.08.2013 from respondent no.3 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penal action should not be taken against the petitioner under the Act, 2007 for declining to accept the admissions granted by the respondent no.3 in respect of Post Graduate courses on the pattern of grant-in-aid. 3.16) The petitioner replied to said notice vide communication dated 16.08.2013 explaining as to how in absence of grant-in-aid, it will not be possible on its part to accept the admission on the pattern of grant-in-aid. 3.17) One of the students who was granted admission by respondent no.3 in respect of one of the four Post Graduate courses by treating the same on the pattern of grant-in-aid, approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.12653/2013 seeking direction upon the petitioner for acceptance of admission. 3.17) One of the students who was granted admission by respondent no.3 in respect of one of the four Post Graduate courses by treating the same on the pattern of grant-in-aid, approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.12653/2013 seeking direction upon the petitioner for acceptance of admission. 3.18) It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of the meeting held on 4.09.2013 between the petitioner and the respondents, the petitioner was given to understand that in the next academic year 2013-2014, there would not be such controversy and admission in respect of said courses would be granted only on the pattern of self-financing and accordingly the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.10.2013. 3.19) The petitioner came to be served with communication dated 12.03.2014 by respondent no.2 whereby the minutes of the meeting dated 4.09.2013 came to be forwarded to the petitioner. Since there was a discrepancy in recording the minutes of the meeting dated 4.09.2013, the petitioner addressed a communication dated 28.03.2014 to respondent no.2 and pointed out to introduce necessary corrigendum in respect of the said minutes. 3.20) The petitioner once again addressed communication dated 3.7.2014 reiterating its earlier stand that the Post Graduate courses are on the pattern of self-financing and each of them is having intake of only 18 students per annum. 3.21) On 21.07.2014, respondent no.3 published on its website the details about the available seats in respect of various Post Graduate courses in various disciplines of Engineering in various institutions and Universities in the entire State of Gujarat for the purpose of admissions for the academic year 2014-2015, wherein it is mentioned that so far as Post Graduate courses in the set up of the petitioner were concerned, each one of them was having an intake of 18 students on the pattern of self-financing only. 3.22) However, on 23.07.2014, the information so published by respondent no.3 on its website came to be modified and it came to be mentioned that in addition to 18 seats each in respect of Post Graduate courses in the set up of the petitioner for the academic year 2014-2015 on the pattern of self- financing, there would be 18 seats each in respect of the Post Graduate courses in the set up of the petitioner for academic year 2014-2015 on the pattern of grant-in-aid also. 3.23) The petitioner therefore, addressed communication dated 28.07.2014 to the respondent no.3 requesting to suitably modify the information about the seats in respect of Post Graduate courses on its website. 3.24) Since there was no response from the respondents to the above request of the petitioner, the petitioner published a notice in newspapers on 30.07.2014 informing the students at large that there would not be any seats on the pattern of grant-in-aid in the set up of the petitioner for the Post Graduate courses. 3.25) Being aggrieved by the inaction on part of the respondents to take corrective measures with regard to the total seats available in respect of Post Graduate courses in the set up of the petitioner for the academic year 2014-2015, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. This Court (Coram : Hon’ble Ms. Justice Harsha Devani, As Her Ladyship was then) by a detailed order dated 7.08.2014 issued rule and granted the interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval C. Dave assisted by the learned advocate Mr. P.A. Jadeja for the petitioner submitted that he has received instructions that no grant is given by the Government for Post Graduate Courses conducted by the petitioner University and the grant given by the Government for Degree and Diploma courses may be utilised for imparting education for Post Graduate Courses and therefore, the Government is insisting for admission in Post Graduate Courses on the basis of grant-in-aid seats only and not on the self-finance basis. 5.1) It was submitted that the Government can take appropriate action against the petitioner University, if grant given for Degree and Diploma courses is not utilised for the same and when admittedly no grant is given for Post Graduate Courses, the petitioner University cannot be compelled to admit the students on grant-in-aid basis. 5.2) It was therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be compelled to admit the students on grant-in-aid seats in absence of any grant for Post Graduate Courses. It was submitted that the petitioner University is required to be permitted to admit the students on self-finance basis so as to allow the students to get the benefit of the infrastructure of the petitioner University. It was submitted that the petitioner University is required to be permitted to admit the students on self-finance basis so as to allow the students to get the benefit of the infrastructure of the petitioner University. 5.3) It was submitted that the petitioner is receiving grant-in-aid from respondent no.1 only in respect of the concerned courses in the discipline of Engineering run by the petitioner at the level of Graduation. 5.4) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that if at all the respondent no.1 was of the view that it will not be possible to proceed further to accord the status of the University established by the State Legislation to the petitioner, respondent no.1 could have stayed its hands and thereupon could not have proceeded further by enacting the Act, 2005 having the effect of establishing the petitioner as an independent University with complete functional autonomy. 5.5) It was submitted that reliance sought to be placed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the meeting of 4.09.2013 on the communication dated 25.11.2004 is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the said communication has lost its significance for all purpose and for all times to come in future and even if recourse is to be made to said communication dated 25.11.2004, the effect thereof is to the effect that henceforth the petitioner will not be entitled to seek any additional grant-in-aid from respondent no.1 and there would be gradual reduction in the grant-in-aid provided to the petitioner so that upon completion of the period referred to therein, the petitioner would become the University totally on the pattern of self-financing. It was therefore, submitted that when the petitioner is to be construed even as per the said communication dated 25.11.2004 as not eligible for grant-in-aid for the Post Graduate courses, it sounds absolutely irrational to insist that the petitioner would also offer the said courses on the pattern of grant-in-aid. 5.6) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. It was therefore, submitted that when the petitioner is to be construed even as per the said communication dated 25.11.2004 as not eligible for grant-in-aid for the Post Graduate courses, it sounds absolutely irrational to insist that the petitioner would also offer the said courses on the pattern of grant-in-aid. 5.6) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that when the grant-in-aid is not being made available for any course for any reason by the State, the only option available with the concerned educational institution is to run such course on the pattern of self-financing and therefore, the impugned course of action on the part of the respondents in thrusting upon the petitioner to offer the Post Graduate courses on the pattern of grant-in-aid is arbitrary in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5.7) It was submitted that filling up equal number of seats in respect of the Post Graduate Courses on the pattern of self-financing to offset to the extent the financial burden caused to the petitioner on account of filling up of the seats by respondent no.3 on the pattern of grant-in-aid could not be the solution for all times to come in future. This was so because the fee structure for equal number of seats in respect of the Post Graduate Courses on the pattern of self-financing will be based upon the cost to be incurred by the petitioner for running the said courses qua the number of seats permitted to be filled on the pattern of self-financing. Therefore, the question of financial burden being reduced on account of permission to fill up equal number of seats on the pattern of self-financing does not arise at all. 5.8) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that as on date, the infrastructure available in the set up of the petitioner for the said Post-Graduate Course is adequate enough to accommodate only 18 students per course per annum and therefore, compelling the petitioner to add further 18 seats to the said 18 seats per course would amount to compelling the petitioner to run the said course beyond its capacity. 5.9) It was further submitted that even if the petitioner is having infrastructure to accommodate more students, the petitioner is entitled to have its own decision as to for how many students the petitioner would like to offer the concerned course as per the provisions of the Act, 2005. 5.10) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that even the mandate of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India leaves no room for the doubt that any compulsion in respect of intake of the said courses would have the direct effect of violating the fundamental rights available to the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It was therefore submitted that the impugned course of action on part of the respondent is ex-facie dehors the law and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner University is getting grant from the Government and in last 10 years more than 36 Crore have been received by the petitioner University towards grant and after receiving such huge amount by way of maintenance and salary grant, the petitioner University is making an attempt to convert the grant-in-aid seats to self-finance seats by this petition. 6.1) It was submitted that the grant is provided by the State Government under the head of Graduation Courses even if the institutes are extending the education to Post Graduate Courses as the students are imparted education by the same staff which is common for Graduate and Post Graduate Courses. 6.2) It was submitted that so far as the maintenance grant is concerned, the University is not required to spend additional cost on infrastructure for Post Graduate Courses and such pattern of grant-in-aid is continued and the petitioner after being established as a private University from the year 2005, has never objected to the intake of the students under the pattern of grant-in-aid against the grant which was received by the University till 2010. 6.3) It was submitted that by way of present petition, petitioner University has contended that it would not be possible for the petitioner to offer the Post Graduate Courses on the pattern of grant-in-aid and therefore, the petitioner University has tried to convert 18 seats of grant-in-aid to self- finance seats to collect approximately Rs.1,50,000/- per seats under the self-finance pattern against only Rs. 1500/- which the students are required to pay under the grant-in-aid pattern seats. 6.4) It was submitted that in the year 2011-2012, no student was admitted in the entire course under the pattern of grant-in-aid and at the relevant point of time, the then Member Secretary of the respondent no.3- Admission Committee did not allot the students to the University and the respondent no.2-Commissionerate of Technical Education issued a show cause notice for not allotting the students in the year 2011-2012 though there were no such instructions either by the State Government or the Commissionerate of Technical Education and inspite of such fact that petitioner University received maintenance as well as salary grant for the said years. 6.5) It was submitted that by filing such petition, the petitioner has attempted to divert the essential service of imparting education by converting the same to commercial activity and running away from the core liability of imparting education to the students without any additional cost as such for the 18 seats under the grant-in-aid pattern. 6.6) It was submitted that the stand taken by the University to provide education only on the self finance category is not based upon the decision of the State Government and thereby the petitioner University has unilaterally converted the seats of grant-in-aid to that of self-finance. 6.7) It was submitted that conduct on part of the Petitioner University in the year 2013 is also required to be considered as the student who was admitted by Admission Committee under the grant-in-aid was not granted admission by the petitioner University and such student was compelled to file Special Civil Application No.12653/2013 before this Court. 6.7) It was submitted that conduct on part of the Petitioner University in the year 2013 is also required to be considered as the student who was admitted by Admission Committee under the grant-in-aid was not granted admission by the petitioner University and such student was compelled to file Special Civil Application No.12653/2013 before this Court. 6.8) With regard to the contention of the petitioner University to get additional grant for Post Graduate courses, it was submitted that such prayer is self contradictory as though the petitioner University is given the grant for courses of MBA and MCA, the petitioner University is receiving grant for Graduation Courses and with the very same grant, the petitioner is imparting education even for the Post Graduate Courses. Therefore, demand for grant-in-aid for the courses of M.Tech as prayed by the petitioner cannot be accepted as the same would result in profit for the petitioner University. 6.9) It was submitted that the petitioner University cannot differentiate between the grant-in-aid for Graduate and Post Graduate programmes as both the programmes are run by the faculty of Technology of the petitioner University for the same subjects. 6.10) Reliance was placed on the subsection(4) of Section 3 of the Act, 2005 to submit that the University shall not have any new grant-in-aid or other financial assistance except as provided in clause(vi) of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the said Act which it was not receiving on the date of commencement of the Act from the State Government. It was therefore, submitted that petitioner is not entitled to further grant as prayed for. It was submitted that for the year 2014 also the petitioner University could not have been permitted to give admission on the self-finance seats as the petitioner University is receiving sufficient grant-in-aid from the State Government. 6.11) Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kathiriya has also referred to and relied upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 Joint Director, Commissionerate of Technical Education, Gujarat State wherein following averments are made : “6. It is respectfully submitted that before answering the contentions of the petitioner University, it would be pertinent to submit before the Hon'ble Court, the details about the grant received by the petitioner University from the year 2005-06 to 2014-15 is around Rs. 41,53,70,000 for degree college and Rs. 5,57,24,000 for the Polytechnic. It is respectfully submitted that before answering the contentions of the petitioner University, it would be pertinent to submit before the Hon'ble Court, the details about the grant received by the petitioner University from the year 2005-06 to 2014-15 is around Rs. 41,53,70,000 for degree college and Rs. 5,57,24,000 for the Polytechnic. A copy of the grant allocation details is annexed herewith and marked as "ANNEXURE R I". The University after receiving this huge amount by way of maintenance and salary grant is making an attempt to convert the Grant-In Aid seats to Self-Finance by the prayers prayed for, in the present petition. 7. It is respectfully submitted that one of the contention of the petitioner during the course of arguments was that the pattern of grant for Under-Graduate courses, Degree courses and Post-Graduate courses are separate. It was contended that Universities and Institutes receive separate grants under the Head of the Post-Graduate courses and Degree courses. It would be pertinent to submit before this Hon'ble Court that for the entire State, the grants are extended under the Head of Degree courses, even if the institutes are extending the education to Post-Graduate courses, as the students are imparted education from the same staff which is common for Degree and Post Graduate courses. Even, as far as the maintenance grant is concerned, the institutes are not required to spend additional cost on any infrastructure for Degree or Post-Graduate courses. 8. It is respectfully submitted that since 1983 and 1987, this pattern of Grant-In-Aid is continued and the petitioner after being established as the State University from the year 2005, has never objected to the intake of students under the pattern of Grant-In- Aid against the grant which was received by the University till 2010 and through out. Today, by way of the present petition, the University has approached this Court that it would not be possible for the petitioner to offer the post-graduate courses on the pattern of Grant-In-Aid and the petitioner University is trying to convert the 18 seats of Grant-In-Aid to Self-Finance seats, meaning thereby, the University is trying to collect approximately Rs. 1, 50,000 per seats under the Self Finance pattern against only Rs. 1500 which the students are required to pay under the Grant-In-Aid pattern against which the grant is extended in favour of the University. 9. 1, 50,000 per seats under the Self Finance pattern against only Rs. 1500 which the students are required to pay under the Grant-In-Aid pattern against which the grant is extended in favour of the University. 9. It is respectfully submitted that the present petition is nothing but an attempt on the part of the University to divert from the essential service of imparting education to commercial activities. The present case also indicates the conduct of the University in running away from the core liability of imparting education to the students without any additional cost as such for the 18 seats under the Grant-In-Aid pattern. 10. It is respectfully submitted that the University has also very conveniently tried to submit before the Hon'ble Court that the University has by way of public notice in the newspaper informed that the University shall only offer the course under the Self Finance category. However, such a decision of the University is neither backed by any decision of the State Government whereby the seats of Grant-In-Aid pattern are converted into Self Finance nor the 18 seats under the Self Finance pattern are only required to be admitted by the University. Therefore, such a notice is of no help to the University especially in absence of any such decision on the part of the State Government. 11. It is respectfully submitted that because of this conduct on the part of the University even in the year 2013, the petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court by one of the students who was though admitted by the A.C.P.C. under the Grant-In- Aid pattern, was not granted admission by the petitioner University. A copy of the affidavit in reply filed in Special Civil Application No. 12653 of 2013 by us is annexed at page 105. A copy of the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 12653 of 2013 is annexed at page 131. 12. It is respectfully submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the Petitioner University is required to have additional grant for Post-Graduate courses itself is self contradictory, as though the University is given the grant for courses of MBA and MCA. Even in those courses, the Petitioner University is receiving grant for degree courses and with the very same grant, the petitioner is imparting education even for the Post-Graduate courses. Even in those courses, the Petitioner University is receiving grant for degree courses and with the very same grant, the petitioner is imparting education even for the Post-Graduate courses. It appears that since the demand of the present courses of M.Tech as prayed for by the petitioner are lucrative; the University intends to earn profits out of the said course. 13. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has also relied upon the communication dated 22.12.2009 which is a letter praying for sanction of teaching post for Grant-In-Aid Post-Graduate programs run by the Faculty of Technology of the petitioner University which also mentions the very same subjects, however, as far as the reply to the said letter (Annexure A Page 43) is concerned, the respondents by letter dated 29.04.2010 (Annexure D Page 54) have indicated that in view of the fact that the petitioner University is established in the year 2005 and was running the said Grant-In Aid course since 1983 and 1987, the University was not entitled for the additional grant which was sought to be prayed by the University under the guise of the letter dated 22.12.2009. It would be appropriate to quote sub-rule 4 of rule 3 of the Dharamsinh Desai University, Act 2005: "Save as provided in clause (vi) of sub section (1) of section 24 of this Act, the University shall not have any new Grant-In-Aid or other financial assistance which it was not receiving on the date of commencement of this Act, from the State Government." 14. It is respectfully submitted that the state government has already clarified that the course of M.E. Chemical Engineering was being conducted at the time of commencement of the act in the year 2005 under the grant-in-aid pattern. Hence the post graduate course M.E.Chemical Engineering is to be considered as Grant-in-aid course and the admissions are to be granted accordingly. The said communication dated 10.10.2014 is annexed herewith and marked as "Annexure RII.” 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, it emerges that the petitioner is not provided the grant-in-aid after being declared as a deemed University under the Act, 2005. Under section 3(4) of the Act, 2005, the petitioner is not eligible for grant in respect of Post Graduate Courses. 8. A statement is made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Under section 3(4) of the Act, 2005, the petitioner is not eligible for grant in respect of Post Graduate Courses. 8. A statement is made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave to the effect that the Government can take appropriate action against the petitioner University if the grant given for Degree and Diploma courses is not utilized for the same and when admittedly no grant is given for the Post Graduate Courses, the petitioner University cannot be compelled to impart education to Post Graduate students on the grant-in-aid seats considering that the petitioner University is not entitled to any further grant than what it was receiving at the time of declaration of the deemed University. 9. The petitioner University as on today is admitting the students on self-finance basis pursuant to the interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2014. 10. In view of the statement made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave that the State Government can take appropriate action against the petitioner University if the grant given for Degree and Diploma courses is not utilized for the same, the prayer made by the petitioner to grant admission by respondent no.3 on self-finance basis in Post Graduate Courses is proper and justified and the respondents cannot insist for admission of students for Post Graduate Courses on grant-in-aid basis, more particularly, when the provisions of section 3(4) of the Act, 2005 does not entitle the petitioner to get any grant except the grant-in-aid from the State Government for the courses which are conducted at the time of commencement of the Act,2005 as per clause(vi) of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the said Act. Section 3(4) of the Act, reads as under : “Save as provided in clause (vi) of subsection (1) of section 24 of this Act, the University shall not have any new grant-in-aid or other financial assistance which it was not receiving on the date of commencement of this Act from the State Government.” 11. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the grant given to the petitioner for Degree and Diploma course may also be utilised for imparting education for Post Graduate Courses and therefore, 18 seats are required to be filled on grant-in-aid basis cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the grant given to the petitioner for Degree and Diploma course may also be utilised for imparting education for Post Graduate Courses and therefore, 18 seats are required to be filled on grant-in-aid basis cannot be accepted. It is true that the maintenance grant and salary grant given to the petitioner University for running Diploma and Degree courses are utilised by the petitioner University for imparting education for the said course but at the same time there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner University has utilised such grant for imparting education to Post Graduate students. 12. The proposal made by the petitioner to convert the 18 grant-in-aid seats to self-finance seats in Post Graduate Courses is pending with the respondent no.1 since 2011. The respondent no.1 has not decided such proposal on one hand and on other hand respondent no.3 was insisting to allot students only on grant-in-aid basis and the petitioner could not have been able to bear the cost of imparting education to Post Graduate Courses to the students who would be admitted in such courses as per grant-in-aid pattern. 13. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, which is in operation till date, the petitioner University is admitting the students on self-finance pattern in Post Graduate Courses from 2014-2015 onwards. The Petitioner University is, therefore, required to keep details of expenses incurred for imparting education to students admitted on self-finance basis for Post Graduate courses separately on one hand and the expenses incurred from the grant received for Graduation courses on the other hand so as to find out that the grant received by the petitioner is used only for imparting education in Graduation and Diploma Courses. 14. In facts of the case, the petitioner University is therefore, directed to furnish details before the competent authority with regard to utilisation of grant-in-aid received by it to show that the petitioner University is not utilising such grant for the purpose of imparting education to the Post Graduate Courses in any manner. If it is found by respondent that the petitioner University is utilising the grant-in-aid received by it for imparting education to Post Graduate students then appropriate action may be taken against the petitioner University. 15. If it is found by respondent that the petitioner University is utilising the grant-in-aid received by it for imparting education to Post Graduate students then appropriate action may be taken against the petitioner University. 15. The respondents therefore, cannot insist upon the petitioner University to admit the students on grant-in-aid pattern when no grant is given for Post Graduation Courses. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the grant received by the petitioner University is also utilized for Post Graduation course is not sustainable in view of the statement made by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the directions issued here-in-above. 16. In view of above, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are therefore, directed to continue the admission of students in Post Graduate Courses in the discipline of Engineering in the set-up of the petitioner University having total intake of 18 seats per annum on the pattern of self-finance only and not to admit any students in respect of Post Graduate Courses on the pattern of grant-in-aid subject to the directions issued here-in-above with regard to the furnishing the details of expenditure incurred from grant-in-aid received by the petitioner University. 17. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.