Delhi High Court
N.S. Kapur And Ors. vs S G T B Khalsa College And Ors on 20 June, 2016
$~25.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6581/2012
% Judgment dated 20 th June, 2016
N.S. KAPUR AND ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Anil Nauriya and Ms.Sumita
Hazarika, Advs. for petitioner no.1.
Mr.Pratap Shanker, Adv. for petitioner
no.2.
versus
S G T B KHALSA COLLEGE AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Jasmeet Singh, Adv. for respondent
no.1.
Mr.Akhil Kulshrestha, Adv. for
respondent no.2.
Mr.Anil Soni, Adv. for respondent no.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 20485/2016 & CM APPL. 20424/2016
1. By CM Appl. 20485/2016 the applicant/petitioner no.1 seeks a direction
to the respondents to abide by the interim arrangement already in force
vide order dated 25.6.2012 passed in LPA No.461/2012 and order dated
20.5.2013 and 1.7.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 6581/2012, and continue to
provide reservations to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
categories.
2. By CM Appl. 20424/2016, the applicant/petitioner no.2 seeks a direction
to stay the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by National Commission for
Minority Educational Institutions during the pendency of the present writ
petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submit that interim order granted by the
Division Bench in LPA No.461/2012 on 25.06.2012 was made applicable
to the present writ petition as well. Reliance is placed on the order passed
by this Court on 20.05.2013. Counsel further submits that this interim
order was continued from time to time.
4. It may be noticed that on 18.04.2016, the counsel for respondent no.1
submitted that he had made a statement before the Court on 01.07.2015
that he would have no objection if the interim order continued to remain
in force. However, since no application for interim relief had been filed
in the present writ petition, therefore, the statement made by him on
01.07.2015 should continue only till the next date of hearing. Leave was
granted to the petitioners to file an application seeking interim relief.
Consequently, the present applications were filed. The aforesaid
applications came up for hearing on 25.05.2016. Counsel for respondent
no.1, on instructions, submitted that no new admissions or appointments
are scheduled to take place before the next date of hearing. On the next
date of hearing, the matter was adjourned before the Vacation Judge on
10.06.2016, when the Vacation Judge directed the respondent to remain
bound by the statement given on 25.05.2016. The matter then came up
for hearing on 17.06.2016, when another Vacation Judge directed the
matter to be listed for hearing on 20.06.2016, he further directed that till
then, the counseling may continue, but admissions may not be made.
5. While counsel for the petitioners submit that the interim order which was
granted by the Division Bench and which was made applicable from time
to time should continue till the disposal of this writ petition, learned
Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the interim order was
granted at the time when the four writ petitions filed by the University of
Delhi assailing the order passed by the National Commission for Minority
Educational Institutions were pending. Mr. Chandhiok submits that at
that stage petitioners had not sought any interim relief nor any application
seeking interim relief was filed which is evident upon reading of the order
dated 18.04.2016 and it is also evident from the fact that the present
applications have now been filed. Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent further submits that initially the University had also
challenged the order passed by the National Commission for Minority
Educational Institutions, but subsequently the petitions were withdrawn
which is evident upon reading of order dated 01.07.2015. In effect the
University accepted the order of the National Commission for Minority
Educational Institutions.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. While the counsel for the petitioners pray that the operation of the
impugned order be stayed and the order passed in LPA No.461/2012
which was made operative to this writ petition be confirmed, Mr.
Chandhiok, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the
petitioners being Teachers of the College have no concern with the
admission procedure.
It may be noted that when this writ petition had come up for hearing
on 16.10.2012, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, the matter
was adjourned for 30.10.2012.
On 30.10.2012, notice to show cause was issued and the matter was
listed for 22.02.2013, when four writ petitions filed by the University of
Delhi were also listed. It is only on 20.05.2013, when the present writ
petition and the four writ petitions filed by the University of Delhi were
listed that the parties had urged that the order passed in LPA No.461/2012
be made applicable to the four writ petitions filed by the University of
Delhi as also the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein. The order of
20.05.2013 reads as under:
"None appears for Union of India.
Counsel for the parties agree tht similar directions be issued in
these matters as were issued by a Division Bench of this Court in
LPA No.461/2012 on 25.06.2012. The Division Bench had
passed the following order:
"We, therefore, modity the order dated 29.05.2012 to the
extent that though the appellants shall give reservations in
the norms of the University of Delhi, they will not be
obliged to provide any reservation for OBC categories."
Ordered accordingly.
Pleadings shall be completed before the next date of hearing
positively.
Let Court notice be issued to Union of India through
StandingConsel Mr. Jatan Singh, returnable for 05.09.2013."
8. It is in this backdrop the interim order continued from time to time.
9. On 01.07.2015, the University of Delhi withdrew the writ petitions filed
by them. The relevant part of the order reads as under:
"1. Though this petition was earlier being taken up along
with W.P.(C) No.8293/2011, W.P.(C) No.8297/2011, W.P.(C)
No.8302/2011 & W.P.(C) No.8310/2011which were filed by the
Delhi University challenging inter alia the same order of the
National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions as
impugned in this petition also, declaring the respondent no.1
Khalsa College a Minority Educational Institution but Delhi
University has today withdrawn the other petitions."
10. On 01.07.2015, the Court also inquired from the petitioners as under:
"6. The cause of action to the petitioners, both who are faculty
members of the respondent no.1 Khalsa College, to challenge the
declaration of the respondent no.1 Khalsa College as a Minority
Educational Institution has been enquired.
7. Though the counsel for the petitioners from the Calendar of
the University of Delhi been unable to show any different rules
applicable, particularly qua employment and terms of service of
faculty members, to a Minority Educational Institution but it is
generally stated that in some of the judgments it has been held
that the faculty members and principal of Minority Educational
Institutions stand on a different footing. Reference is made to
some judgments in the case of St. Stephen's College and Jesus
and Mary College."
11. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time when the interim
arrangement continued. When the matter was listed on 03.11.2015, it was
observed in the order as under:
"The learned counsel for the petitioners says that he will file an
affidavit articulating therein, as to how the continued status of
respondent no.1 college as a minority institution affects the rights
of the petitioners..."
12. During the course of hearing, this Court had also inquired from the
learned counsel for the petitioners as to how the rights of the petitioners
are affected by the impugned order. This Court also inquired from the
learned counsel for the petitioners as to how their rights would be affected
if the admission process continued. There has been no satisfactory
anwser.
13. Be that as it may, I am of the view that when the interim order passed in
LPA No.461/2012 dated 25.06.2012 was made applicable, four writ
petitions filed by the University of Delhi were also pending. Although,
the order was made applicable to this writ petition as well, but the fact of
the matter is that there was no stay application filed by the petitioners at
that stage. It is only when the counsel for respondent no.1 pointed out the
same that the present applications have been filed. It is also relevant to
note that the four writ petitions filed by the University including Writ
Petition (C) No.8302/2011 titled „University of Delhi Through its
Registrar v. Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College and Ors.‟ were
pending when the interim arrangement was agreed upon. Since the
University has itself decided to abide by the orders passed by the National
Commission for Minority Educational Institutions and the petitioners
have failed to show the prejudice which may be caused to them in case
the interim order is not continued, the present applications cannot be
allowed.
14. Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, suggest that it should be clarified
that respondent no.1 should not take a stand in future that the order of the
National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions has now taken
effect and the students have been admitted, therefore, the writ petition has
become infructuous. Mr.Chandhiok submits that the fears of the
petitioners are unfounded. Should the petitioners succeed, the respondent
is bound to comply with the directions of the Court and merely because
admissions have been made would be of no effect.
15. It is clarified that should the respondents admit students as per the
minority status granted, this would not be a ground available for the
respondents to oppose the writ petition at the time of final hearing of the
writ petition. However, it is agreed that any fresh appointment of
Teachers shall be subject to final orders to be passed in the writ petition
and the persons so appointed would be informed about the pendency of
the writ petition. They would also be informed that there appointment
would be subject to the final orders which may be passed in the wr it
petition.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in both the the applications. The
same are accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 20, 2016
msr/pst
