Bombay High Court
Forum For Fairness In Education ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 16 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003 (2) BomCR 79
Author: C Thakker
Bench: C Thakker, D Ranjana
JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, C.J.
1. In the present petition, the grievance voiced by petitioner No. 2, party in person appearing for Forum for Fairness in Education, in public interest litigation, is that the respondent-authorities may be directed by issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order , so that the students strength in each division in a college should not exceed 80, contrary to the instructions issued by the University Grants Commission.
2. According to the petitioners, the University Grants Commission has been established under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is a statutory authority under the Act, and it has issued certain instructions. One of such notifications issued on December 4, 1998 has been placed on record. Clause (2) of paragraph 6 deals with Physical facilities, and it states;
"The lecture-classes shall normally not exceed 80 students, unless in special cases, the University has accommodation for larger classes and makes suitable audio-visual arrangements of effective lecturing accompanied by tutorial classes."
The complaint of the petitioners is that even though such facilities of audio-visual arrangements are not available, several colleges have admitted more than 80 students, and in some cases, up to 180. This is clearly illegal, unlawful and the respondent-authorities are required to take appropriate action in accordance with law against such institutions.
3. Notice was issued pursuant to which respondent Nos. 1 to 3 appeared.
4. On behalf of respondent No. 4. University Grants Commission, an affidavit-in-reply is filed. In the counter, Clause (2) of paragraph 6 of the above notification has been cited. It is stated that those instructions are binding on every University established or incorporated by or under the Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act. All institutions are also required to observe the instructions and standards laid down by the University Grants Commission. Our attention was also invited to another circular issued on June 17, 1999, wherein it was stated that in partial modification of the circulars referred to therein, the Principals of Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges affiliated to the University were informed that they could admit up to 120 students per division at the F.Y.B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. classes for the academic year 1999-2000 only as per the decision taken by the Academic Council in its urgent meeting held on June 17, 1999.
5. An affidavit-in-reply in also filed by the State-authorities, and it was stated that the State-authorities would be implementing the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission. It was further stated that normally, the recommendations would be implemented, unless there is relaxation as pointed out in the recommendations of the University Grants Commission.
6. The petitioners have relied upon two instances, one of Sheth N.K.T. College of Commerce at Thane, and the other of Borivali Education Society College at Borivali alleging non-compliance of the directions-instructions. The deponent, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has specifically stated that they were bad examples. It was also stated that appropriate measures have been taken against them. Management of one of the two has been taken over by the Government.
7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the respondents have not taken appropriate steps for implementation of recommendations of U.G.C. The University Grants Commission is a statutory authority and has been empowered to lay down certain standards. It is, hence, obligatory on the respondent-State-authorities to implement those recommendations. On the basis of affidavits, we are satisfied that those recommendations have been implemented.
8. It is also clear that steps have been taken against the erring institutions. In future also, the respondent-authorities will take appropriate steps if it is found that any college or institution has violated or not observed the recommendations of the University Grants Commission.
9. With the above observations, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be disposed of, and is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
10. Parties be given copies of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar/Private Secretary.
Order accordingly.
