C/M Kisan P.G. College, Baghai And ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 24932 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178506
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16208 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M Kisan P.G. College, Baghai And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Ran Vijay Singh
 
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in pursuance of the previous order of this Court is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, Shri Ran Vijay Singh for respondent nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

3. The petitioners have challenged order dated 17.05.2023 whereby the respondent-University proceeded to conduct inquiry in respect of 36 aspects before adhering to the request of the petitioners to accord affiliation to additional 50 seats for B.Ed. two years course.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to various proceedings, argued on the last occasion that the University is changing stand from one pretext to other and, even otherwise, the order impugned cannot sustain as the points, on which, inquiry is said to be conducted have no co-relation with the issues involved.

5. After hearing the parties at length on the previous occasion, this Court passed a detailed order on 18.08.2023 which reads as follows:-

"1. Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-University and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioners is that National Council for Teacher Education granted recognition to the petitioners' Institution to run two basic units of 50 students each in B.Ed. Course by letter dated 13.05.2015. However, when no action was taken by the University with regard to affiliation, the petitioners filed Writ C No.32496 of 2022 (C/M Kisan P.G. College And Another v. State of U.P. And 2 Others) which was disposed off by this Court by order dated 29.11.2022.

3. It is contended that when the aforesaid writ petition was heard, the statement was made on behalf of the University on the basis of instructions furnished that permanent affiliation cannot be granted as prayed by the petitioners because the appointment of the Head of the Department of the institution has not yet been approved. In view of the said statement, the said writ petition was disposed off directing the Registrar to take appropriate decision with regard to approval of appointment of the Head of the Department of the petitioners' Institution.

4. There is no dispute about the fact that by order dated 24.03.2023 approval has been granted to the appointment of the Head of the Department of the petitioners' institution. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, another dispute arose with regard to number of teachers teaching in the Institution and, though, it was argued that the contract period of seven teachers ended in 2019, later on, the position stood clarified in terms of affidavit filed by the Manager of the Institution before the Vice Chancellor of the University demonstrating that approval to 15 teachers has been granted by the concerned authorities.

5. The grievance of the writ petitioners now is to the effect that by order/letter dated 17.05.2023, the University has taken a decision to conduct inspection of the petitioners' building with respect to 36 points mentioned in tabulated form in the said order. The submission is that once the National Council for Teacher Education has already granted recognition to two units of 50 students each, after verifying the relevant aspects, including building, library, qualified staff and financial stability of the institution, the University cannot initiate an endless process to inspect the building and, moreover, it cannot take different grounds to deny relief to the petitioners in every round of litigation. In support of submission, reliance has been placed upon judgment of this Court in the case of C/M Jai Maa Gange Manav Kalyan Sanstha Thru. Mng. & Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko. & Ors. reported in 2021 (0) Supreme (All) 911 with special reference to 'paragraph 47' thereof which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"47. Thus, it will be seen that it is the provisions of the Central Act, which have to be adhered to and the affiliating/examining body is required to abide by the N.T.C.E. directions as illustratively stated in the said report that existence of building, library, qualified staff, financial stability of the institution, accommodation, etc. are subjects specifically covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act of 1993. Hence, they would not be open to re-examination by the State University. The Apex Court also noted that both the N.C.T.E. and the State body should act in synchronization and coordination but not required to act in derogation to the N.C.T.E."

6. Shri Ran Vijay Singh learned counsel for the University, though submits that issue involved is with regard to granting affiliation to additional seats in the B.Ed. Course, states the petitioners' institution is indulged in not only conducting B.Ed Course but also various other courses in the same premises and there is short of requirement insofar as the infrastructural facilities are concerned, thus, if the University has proceeded to conduct inspection, no illegality can be pointed out.

7. During the course of arguments, a consensus has been arrived at between the parties on the following aspects:-

(a). As to how many courses are being run by the petitioners in the building in question;

(b). What are the number of classes existing in the building;

(c). How many students are receiving education in B.Ed Course and other courses, if any.

8. Let a supplementary affidavit be filed by petitioners clearly explaining the aforesaid aspects supported by the necessary original recent photographs of the infrastructural facilities, inside and outside the building, with complete details, as noted above.

9. A copy of the supplementary affidavit shall be served on other side two days prior to the date of hearing and the said affidavit shall be filed in Court and not in office.

10. Put up this case on 28.08.2023 as fresh. "

6. A perusal of the order shows that leaving 36 points aside, a consensus was arrived at between the parties on the aspect as to whether in view of running of various courses in the premises, infrastructural facilities are sufficient for according affiliation to additional 50 seats in B.Ed. Course.

7. Supplementary affidavit filed today is accompanied by various photographs of the building and maps etc. Apart from this, the contents of affidavit go to show that the petitioners are running various courses from the premises and a stand has been taken with reference to the description given in the supplementary affidavit that sufficient infrastructure is available in the premises for running additional 50 seats of B.Ed. course.

8. Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the University submits that stand taken in the supplementary affidavit is to be examined by conducting spot inspection and affiliation to additional seats would be granted only when the University-Authorities are fully satisfied that infrastructural facilities are sufficiently available so that additional students, if their admission is allowed, may not face any kind of difficulties as the College not only runs B.Ed. course but also various other courses like B.A., M.A. and B.P.Ed. are being run and description given in the supplementary affidavit discloses that there are more than 500 seats already occupied by these students as per 'paragraph 3' of the supplementary affidavit.

9. Availability of sufficient infrastructure being a disputed question of fact, the same cannot be decided only on the basis of affidavits and spot inspection in this regard is the only option.

10. Considering the previous order passed by this Court, the stand taken today in the supplementary affidavit and the limited question involved in the matter, the writ petition is being disposed off in the following terms:-

(a). The respondent-University shall immediately constitute an Inspection Team to conduct spot inspection of the premises of the Institution;

(b). The University shall issue notice to the petitioners on or before 25.09.2023 duly intimating the exact date of inspection of the building;

(c). The inspection Team shall conduct the spot inspection on the date fixed which shall not be later than 04.10.2023;

(d). The petitioners-Authorities shall make signatures by recording their presence during the course of inspection;

(e). The inspection shall be limited only to the aspect that in case affiliation to additional 50 seats is granted in the B.Ed. course, additional students would or would not face any difficulty and as to whether there is sufficient space and other facilities available to accommodate those additional students;

(f). The inspection report shall be supplied to the petitioners immediately after its preparation which shall not be later than 15.10.2023;

(g). The University shall take a decision on the basis of the spot inspection on or before 27.10.2023.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation regarding merits of the claim of the petitioners and it is open for the authorities to decide the same in terms of inspection report in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 15.9.2023

Jyotsana