Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2492 (ALL)

Mamta Girls Degree College v. State of U. P.

2024-12-10

MANISH MATHUR

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Manish Mathur, J.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel for opposite party No. 1 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for opposite parties No. 2 to 4. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to verify the Unique Identity Number (UIN) of students of 1st Semester of Graduation and Post Graduation Courses of different subjects of petitioner's Institutions for the Session 2024-25. Further prayer commanding the University concerned to unlock the Website of University for filling up the examination forms of students of first Semester of Graduation and Post Graduation Courses of different subject of petitioner's Institutions for the academic Session 2024-2025 has also been sought. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioners' colleges are recognized as self financed degree colleges with affiliation having been granted to the colleges for two, three and four years conduct of graduate courses of different subjects. It has also been submitted that for appointing Lecturers in the college in different subjects, request letter was sent by petitioner for appointment of subject experts. It is submitted that privilege of affiliation were granted to the petitioner vide order dated 25.7.2024 issued by the University whereunder the courses were commenced and learned counsel has drawn attention to the notification dated 16.10.2024 indicating the timeline for generation of UIN code of the students. It is submitted that despite the fact that details of students were supplied by the Institution to the University for generation of UIN code, the same has not been generated due to which students would be deprived from participating in the examinations. Learned counsel has placed reliance on order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Writ C No. 11445 of 2023 and connected matters as well as order dated 5.12.2024 passed in Writ C No. 9866 of 2024 seeking parity. 4. It is submitted that in the aforesaid cases as well, the subject experts had not been provided to the Institutions concerned but even thereafter directions were issued by this Court for verification of Unique Identity Numbers of students. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party University has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that in terms of Section 37(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, any college may be admitted to privileges of affiliation in case such college fulfills such conditions of affiliation as are prescribed. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party University has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that in terms of Section 37(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, any college may be admitted to privileges of affiliation in case such college fulfills such conditions of affiliation as are prescribed. 6. It is submitted that it is in terms of the aforesaid provision that petitioner was granted privileges of affiliation vide order dated 25.7.2024, however with a stipulation that such order cannot be construed to grant permission to conduct classes. It is submitted that despite such a condition clearly indicated in the order dated 25.7.2024, petitioner has admitted students and conducted classes without fulfilling conditions of affiliation and without any approval of the teachers allegedly appointed by the college. It is submitted that since the petitioners' Institution does not fulfill conditions required for affiliation, the UIN code cannot be generated in such circumstances. It is also submitted that the order relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner are inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's Institution is claiming benefit of privileges of affiliation in terms of order dated 25.7.2024 whereby such privileges of affiliation were enlarged to the petitioner. However condition 2 of the aforesaid order itself clearly indicates a condition that such an order would not be construed as any approval or permission for conduct of classes. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner is taking benefit of order dated 25.7.2024, it would be bound by all the stipulations of the aforesaid order including the aforesaid condition. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to indicate any provision of law or order whereby it was authorized to admit students and conduct classes for which generation of UIN code is being sought. 10. In such circumstances, where the college itself does not fulfill the essential condition required for affiliation or even for enlargement of affiliation, there does not appear to be any occasion to grant any such relief as has been sought in the petition. 11. 10. In such circumstances, where the college itself does not fulfill the essential condition required for affiliation or even for enlargement of affiliation, there does not appear to be any occasion to grant any such relief as has been sought in the petition. 11. So far as the orders relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner seeking parity are concerned, the same clearly indicate the fact that the benefit was provided as a one time measure with a direction being given to the University to open the portal on 6.12.2024 for purposes of generation of UIN code. The said date has already expired. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner however disputes the fact that the portal was open by University on 6.12.2024. The said aspect is completely irrelevant in view of discussion made hereinabove. 13. It is an admitted fact that the cut off date for application for generation of UIN code has expired on 21.10.2024 and the first application submitted by petitioner for generation of UIN code for the students was made very well after the aforesaid cut off of date i.e. on 6.11.2024. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the subject experts itself was provided by the University on 25.10.2024. 15. Even as per submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, it is evident that subject expert itself was provided after the cut off date required for generation and approval of the UIN code. In such circumstances, it is not understandable under which authority of law the petitioner's Institution admitted students and conducted classes when the teachers themselves were appointed after the cut off date for the purposes of generation of UIN code. Therefore the aspect of minimum required attendance by students would also be a factor. 16. The aforesaid factors clearly make petitioner's case distinguishable from the other cases on which reliance has been placed. 17. The second reason for not placing reliance on the orders relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner is that the process cannot be interminable. Once a cut off date has already been provided, it is equally applicable upon all the parties concerned. The orders on which reliance has been placed clearly has been passed on the ground that the portal was reopened for a single date on 6.12.2024. Such a process cannot be continued interminably on the filing of repeated petitions by different Institutes. 18. The orders on which reliance has been placed clearly has been passed on the ground that the portal was reopened for a single date on 6.12.2024. Such a process cannot be continued interminably on the filing of repeated petitions by different Institutes. 18. In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any occasion to entertain the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.