Gayatri Shiksha Evam Seva ... vs State Of Raj And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2257 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                BENCH AT JAIPUR

      (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13200/2019

1.   Sita Devi Educational Society, Bhilwara Through Its
     Secretary, Bhawana Totla, Wife Of Shri Pushpendra Kumar
     Totla, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of 7, Suzuki
     Enclave, Chittorgarh Road, Bhilwara (Raj).
2.   Management Committee, Sita Devi College, New Pani Ki
     Tanki, Sindhu Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.) Through Secretary
     Bhawana Totla.
                                                                ----Petitioners
                                Versus
1.   State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
     Higher    Education           Department,               Government      Of
     Rajasthan ,secretariat, Jaipur.
2.   The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of
     Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.   The Joint Director (Private Institutions), Block-4, Shiksha
     Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.
4.   Dy Director, College Education, Jaipur.
5.   Urban    Improvement           Trust,       Bhilwara       Through     Its
     Secretary, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                              ----Respondents

Connected With

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7841/2016 1 Shri Ji Sewarth Samiti, 314-B, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara through its Secretary, Shri Nitin Jain, son of Shri Suresh Jain, aged about 36 years, R/o Bhadada Bagh, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

2. Indira Professional Sansthan College, Main Road, Gulabpura, Bhilwara through its Secretary, Shri Nitin Jain, S/o Shri Suresh Jain, aged about 36 years, R/o Bhadada Bagh, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.) ....Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher

(2 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. Joint Director, (Private Institutions), Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur

4. The Director, Local Bodies, Local Self Government, Civil Lines, Jaipur

----Respondents

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3966/2017

1. Gayatri Shiksha Evam Seva Sansthan, Kotada Through Its Chairman, Shri Jayant Panchal, Son Of Shri, Village And Post Arthuna, Tehsil Garhi, District Bhilwara

2. Vagad College, Village Davela-Kotda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara, Through Its Chairman, Managin, Village And Post Arthuna, Tehsil Garhi, District Bhilwara

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

3. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

4. Joint Director, Private Institutions, Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur

5. The Director, Local Bodies, Local Self Government, Civil Lines, Jaipur

----Respondents

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4033/2017

1. Shri Ram Krishna Paramhans Vikas Samiti, Banswara Through Its Chairaman Smt. Jaya Shree Acharya, Wi, Mohan Colony, Vilage And Post Paloda, District Banswara.

2. Management Committee, Maharana Pratap Mahavidyalaya, Through Its Chairman, Smt. Jaishree Acharya, W, Mohan Colony, Village And Post Paloda, District Banswara.

                                       (3 of 43)                    [CW-13200/2019]


                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                 Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. Joint Director, Private Institutions, Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1803/2018

1. Wagar Infotech Shiksha Samiti, 79, Nathelav Colony, Behind Kabir Temple, Dahod Road, Banswara 327001, Rajasthan.

2. Wagarshree College, Tripolia Road, Ghantaghar Palace, Banswara 327001.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Joint Director Private Institutions, Block 4, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur

----Respondents

(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5864/2019

1. Gurukul Institution Of Education, Doongarpur

2. Management Committee, Gurukul Collage Sadwara, District Doongarpur, Through Its Secretary Shri Sharad Joshi S/o Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Gurukul Campus, Bichhiwara Road, Doongarpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through It Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(4 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

2. The Commissioner, Collage Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Director (Private Institutions), Block-4, Shiksha Sankul J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10222/2019

1. Gayatri Shiksha Evam Seva Sansthan, Kotada, Through Its Chairman, Shri Jayant Panchal Son Of Shri K.l. Panchal, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Arthuna, Tehsil Garhi, District Bhilwara.

2. Vagad College, Village Davela-Kotda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara, Through Its Chairman, Shri Jayant Panchal Son Of Shri K.l. Panchal, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Arthuna, Tehsil Garhi, District Bhilwara.

3. Shri Ram Krishna Paramhans Vikas Samiti, Banswara, Through Its Chairman, Smt. Jaya Shree Acharya, Wife Of Shri Prasan Acharya, Resident Of Mohan Colony, Village And Post Paloda, District Banswara.

4. Management Committee, Maharana Pratap Mahavidyalaya, Through Its Chairman Smt. Jaya Shree Acharya, Wife Of Shri Prasan Acharya, Resident Of Mohan Colony, Village And Post Paloda, District Banswara.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Joint Director, (Private Institutions), Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13652/2019

1. Siddhnath Sewa Sansthan, Banswara Through Its Secretary, Tarun Trivedi Son Of Shri Ramesh Chandra Trivedi, Aged 39 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chhinch, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara.

                                      (5 of 43)                   [CW-13200/2019]


2.   Managing         Committee,          Subhash             Chandra     Bose

Mahavidyalaya, Ganeshpura Ambapura, Tehsil Abapura, District Banswara, Through Its Secretary, Tarun Trivedi Son Of Shri Ramesh Chandra Trivedi, Aged 39 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chhinch, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara.

3. Mahi Foundation Society, Banswara Through Its Secretary, Shri Sunil Yadav, Son Of Shri Kewal Krishna Yadav, Aged 40 Years, Resident Of 22-23, Rishi Kunj, Ratlam Road, Banswara.

4. Mahi College Of Education, Village Katumbi, P.o. Chhoti Sarwan, Tehsil Chhoti Sarwan, District Banswara, Through Its Secretary, Shri Sunil Yadav, Son Of Shri Kewal Krishna Yadav, Aged 40 Years, Resident Of 22-23, Rishi Kunj, Ratlam Road, Banswara.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Joint Director College Education (Private Institutions), Rajasthan, Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

4. Regional Director, National Council For Teacher Education, Wing Ii, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

----Respondents

(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13806/2019

1. Shree Nath Shikshan Sansthan, Agarpura Colony, Banswara, Through Its President Ranchhod Garg, Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Garg, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 85, Agarpura Colony, Behind Shwetambar Jain Temple, Banswara.

2. Shree Nath College, Kumji Ka Parda, Post Garhi, District Banswara, Through Its Director Managing Committee, Ranchhod Garg, Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Garg, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 85, Agarpura Colony, Behind Shwetambar Jain Temple, Banswara.

                                                                 ----Petitioners


                                       (6 of 43)                 [CW-13200/2019]


                                 Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Joint Director, College Education (Private Institutions), Rajasthan, Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13825/2019

1. Azad Bal Mahila Viklang Jan Kalyan Sanstha, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Through Its Secretary Shri Amit Saraswat, Saaji Ka Mohalla, Mangla Chowk, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

2. Pathik Collage, Post Bijolia Through Its Secretary, Amit Saraswat Saaji Ka Mohalla, Mangla Chowk, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Director (Private Institutions), Block-4, Shiksha Sankul J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur

----Respondents

(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14157/2019

1. Wagar Mewar Kalyan Vikas Sansthan, Banswara (Rajasthan) Through Director Prateek K. Jain S/o Shri Dinesh Jain, Age About 32 Years, R/o House No. 8, Kalawat Colony, Jai Samand Road, Titardi, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Mahatma Gandhi College, Tatiya Crossing, Near Moradi Mill, Timbagamdi, Udaipur Road, Banswara (Rajasthan) Through Its Director Managing Committee Prateek K. Jain S/o Shri Dinesh Jain, Age About 32 Years, R/o House No. 8, Kalawat Colony, Jai Samand Road, Titardi, Udaipur,

(7 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through It Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Director (Private Institutions), Block-4, Shiksha Sankul J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7714/2021

1. Navsarthak Foundation, Road No. 2, Mohan Colony, Banswara Through Its Chief Executive, Manish Trivedi S/o Shri Laxmikant Trivedi, R/o Near Shiv Hanuman Mandir, Housing Board, Banswara (Raj.)

2. Leo College, Leo Campus, Dangpada, Udaipur Road, Banswara Through Its Executive Director, Manish Trivedi S/o Shri Laxmikant Trivedi, R/o Near Shiv Hanuman Mandir, Housing Board, Banswara (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Higher Education, Jln Marg, Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director, Local Bodies, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

4. Municipal Council, Banswara, Through Its Commissioner, Gandhi Murti, Banswara (Raj.)

----Respondents

(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8406/2017

Shri Pragya Mahila Mahavidhyalaya, Manjari Kallan, Neemrana, District - Alwar, Through Its Secretary, Shri Baljeet Kumar S/o Shri Balbir Singh, Aged - 48 Years, Resident Of Shikshak Colony, Behrod, District - Alwar. Rajasthan.

                                         (8 of 43)                    [CW-13200/2019]


                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                   Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.rajasthan.

2. Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Joint Director Private Institutions College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8407/2017 Koshyalya Devi Mahila Mahavidhyalaya Through President Of Managing Committee Of The College, Shri K, Resident Of Village- Baswa, Tehsil - Baswa, District -Dousa. Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan

2. Commissioner, College Education Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Joint Director Private Institutions, College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur

4. Rajasthan University, Jaipur Through Its Registrar

----Respondents

(15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8409/2017 Shri Pragya Mahila Mahavidhyalaya, Sodawas, Ajarka Road, Sodawas, Tehsil - Mundawar, District Alwar, Resident Of Shikshak Colony, Behrod, District - Alwar. Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan

2. Commissioner, College Education Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Joint Director Private Institutions, College Education,

(9 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Rajasthan, Jaipur

4. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(16) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27851/2018 Shri Pragya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Manjari Kallan, Neemrana, District Alwar Through Its Secretary, Shri Baljeet Kumar S/o. Shri Balbir Singh By Caste Ahir Age About 49 Years Resident Of Shikshak Colony, Behrod, District Alwar (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Department Of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University Alwar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(17) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27855/2018 Shri Pragya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Sodawas, Ajarka Road, Sodawas, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar Through Its Secretary, Shri Baljeet Kumar S/o. Shri Balbir Singh By Caste Ahir Age About 49 Years Resident Of Shikshak Colony, Behrod, District Alwar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner, Department Of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(18) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3427/2021 Shri Pragya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Sodawas, Ajarka Road, Sodawas, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar Through Its Secretary, Shri Baljeet Kumar S/o Shri Balbir Singh Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Shikshak Colony, Behrod, District Alwar (Raj.)

(10 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Department Of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(19) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3438/2021 Shri Pragya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Manjari Kallan, Neemrana, District Alwar Through Its Secretary, Shri Baljeet Kumar S/o Shri Balbir Singh Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Shikshak Colony, Behrod, District Alwar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Department Of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(20) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17038/2019

Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, Kotkasim, Alwar, Through Its President Vinay Kumar Son Of Shri Banshi Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Momanpur, Tehsil Behror, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, College Education, Commissionerate Of College Education, Jaipur.

3. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(21) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3439/2020 Vivekanand Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Dholpur Through Society

(11 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Vivekanand Bal Vidhyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Dholpur Through Secretary Balveer Singh Verma S/o. Sh. Gyarsiram, R/o. Near Vivekanand College, Taliya Road, District Dholpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus Maharaja Surajmal Braj University, Bharatpur Through Registrar.

----Respondent

(22) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3450/2020 Pandit Uma Dutt Girls P.g. College, Uma Nagar, G.t. Road, Dholpur Through Society Indira Gandhi Shikshan Sansthan, G.t. Road, Dholpur Through Principal Dr. Santosh Lal Sharma S/o. Sh. Roshan Lal Sharma, Aged 44 Years, R/o. Uma Nagar, G.t. Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus Maharaja Surajmal Braj University, Bharatpur Through Registrar.

----Respondent

(23) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17770/2019

Lok Manya Tilak College, Ramgarh, Alwar (Rajasthan) Through Its Honorary Director, Rishi Raj Sharma Son Of Sh. Dharamveer Sharma, Resident Of Birbal Ka Mohalla, Alwar (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of College Education, Government Secretariate, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

3. Rajrishi Bhartihari Matya University, Alwar Girls Hostel Building, Babu Shobha Ram, Govt. Arts College Campus, Alwar (Rajasthan)

4. The Joint Director, (Private College), College Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(24) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25209/2018 Rajeshwar Mahavidyalaya, Shyam Nagar, Behror, Alwar Through

(12 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Its Secretary Rajkumar Yadav, Aged 36 Years, Son Of Phool Singh Yadav, Resident Of Shyam Nagar, Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Commissionerate Of College Education, Jaipur.

3. Raj Rishi Bharthari Matsya University, Alwar Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(25) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17609/2019 Gargi Mahila Mahavidhyalaya, Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Raj.) Through Its Secretary Smt. Poonam Yadav Wife Of Shri Bhim Singh Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Bhungra Ahir, Tehsil Mandawar, District Alwar (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, College Education, Commissionerate Of College Education, Jaipur.

3. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(26) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1753/2020 Pandit Uma Dutt Girls P.g. College, Uma Nagar, G.t. Road, Dholpur Through Society Indira Gandhi Shikshan Sansthan, G.t. Road, Dholpur Through Principal Dr. Santosh Lal Sharma S/o. Sh. Roshan Lal Sharma, Aged 44 Years, R/o. Uma Nagar, G.t. Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha

(13 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Sankul, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(27) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1757/2020

Vivekanand Kanya Mahavidhyalaya Dholpur, Through Society Vivekanand Bal Vidhyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Dholpur Through Secretary Balveer Singh Verma S/o. Sh. Gyarsiram, R/o. Near Vivekanand College, Taliya Road, District Dholpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(28) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3544/2020

Guru Gobind Singh Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Ramgarh, Alwar, Through Its Secretary Sarabjeet Singh Son Of Shri Harbhajan Singh, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Ofguru Gobind Singh Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Ramgarh, Alwar(Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, College Education, Commissionerate Of College Education, Jaipur.

3. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(29) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4027/2020

Shri Pragya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Manjari Kallan, Neemrana, District Alwar Through Its Secretary, Shri Baljeet Kumar S/o Shri Balbir Singh By Caste Ahir Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Shikshak Colony, Behrod, District Alwar (Raj.).

                                                                   ----Petitioner



                                          (14 of 43)                 [CW-13200/2019]


                                    Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Department Of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(30) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4028/2020

Shri Pragya Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Sodawas, Ajarka Road, Sodawas, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar Through Its Secretary, Shri Baljeet Kumar S/o Shri Balbir Singh By Caste Ahir Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Shikshak Colony, Behrod, District Alwar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Department Of College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(31) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3292/2021 Sarswati College Reni Alwar, Through Its Managing Committee Sarswati Siksha Sansthan Reni Alwar Through Its Secretary Madan Lal Meena Son Of Shri Ram Khiladi Meena Aged 40 Years R/o Gram Post Parveni, Alwar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajrishi Bharthari Matsya University Of Alwar, Through Exam Controller Girls Hostel Building Babu Shobha Ram Govt. Arts College Campus, Alwar.

2. Commissioner College Education, Rajasthan Jaipur Block-

4 R.k.s Sankul Jln Road Jaipur.

----Respondents

(32) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3293/2021

1. Shri Matsya Pg College, By Pass Road Kherli Alwar Through Its Managing Committee Matsya Adarash

(15 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Shiksha Samiti Kherli Through Its Secretary Ashok Kumar Son Of Shri Brijlal, R/o Gram Post-Bhanokhar, Kathumar Alwar.

2. Shri Matsya College, Gandura Road Badoda Mev Alwar Through Its Managing Committee Matsya Adarash Shiksha Samiti Kherli Through Secretary Ashok Kumar Son Of Shri Brijlal, R/o Gram Post-Bhanokhar, Kathumar Alwar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Rajrishi Bharthari Matsya University Of Alwar, Through Exam Controller Girls Hostel Building Babu Shobha Ram Govt. Arts College Campus, Alwar.

2. Commissioner College Education Rajasthan Jaipur, Block-4 R.k.s Sankul Jln Road Jaipur.

----Respondents

(33) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4439/2021 Palak College, Bhanokhar, Kathumar, Alwar Through Its Managing Committee Palak Shikshan Sansthan, Kathumar, Alwar Through Its Secretary Rashmi Sharma Wife Of Shri Jitendra Sharma, Resident Of Ghosrana, Kathumar, Alwar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajrishi Bharthari Matsya University Of Alwar, Through Exam Controller, Girls Hostel Building, Babu Shobha Ram Govt. Arts College Campus, Alwar.

2. Commissioner College Education, Rajasthan Jaipur Block-

4 R.k.s Sankul Jln Road Jaipur.

----Respondents

(34) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4732/2021 Pandit Uma Dutt Girls P.g. College, Uma Nagar, G.t. Road, Dholpur Through Society Indira Gandhi Shikshan Sansthan, G.t. Road, Dholpur Through Principal Dr. Santosh Lal Sharma S/o. Sh. Roshan Lal Sharma, Aged 44 Years, R/o. Uma Nagar, G.t.

Road, Dholpur (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner



                                         (16 of 43)                [CW-13200/2019]


                                   Versus

1. Maharaja Surajmal Braj University, Bharatpur Through Registrar.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(35) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4733/2021

Vivekanand Kanya Mahavidhyalaya Dholpur, Through Society Vivekanand Bal Vidhyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Dholpur Through Secretary Balveer Singh Verma S/o. Sh. Gyasiram, R/o. Near Vivekanand College, Taliya Road, District Dholpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Maharaja Surajmal Braj University, Bharatpur Through Registrar.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(36) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7150/2021

Utkarsh Mahavidhyala, Through Its Managing Committee Utkarsh Shikshan Sansthan, Weir, Distt. Bharatpur Through Its Chairman Shri Pooran Mal Pushp Son Of Shri Bhola Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Bhusawar Gate, Weir, Distt. Bharatpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Maharaja Surajmal Brij University, Chak Sakitara, Kumher, Bharatpur, Through Its Registrar.

2. Commissioner College Education Rajasthan, Jaipur Block-

4 R.k.s Sankul Jln Road Jaipur.

----Respondents

(37) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7151/2021

(17 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Shri Vijaysthali Vidhyapeeth Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Through Its Managing Committee Nav Srijan Vikas Sansthan, Deeg Road, Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur Through Its Secretary Shri Hari Om Son Of Shri Jayanti Prasad, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Near Gayatri Mandir, Shanti Kunj, Deeg Road, Kumher, Bharatpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Maharaja Surajmal Brij University, Chak Sakitara, Kumher, Bharatpur, Through Its Registrar.

2. Commissioner College Education, Rajasthan Jaipur Block-

4 R.k.s Sankul Jln Road Jaipur.

----Respondents

(38) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 291/2021

Siddhi Vinayak Mahavidhayalya, Through Its Secretary Smt Gayatri Bai Meena W/o Ramesh Chand Meena Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Roadways Depo, Circuit House Road, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. College Address- Vpo Wazeerpur Dist. Sawaimadhpur Rajasthan (Under The Aegis Of Sarv Vidhya Pradayni Seva Samiti, Sawaimadhpur) Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissionerate Of College Education, Through Its Commissioner, Higher Education, Block-Iv, R.k.s. Sankul, J.l.n. Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

3. Joint Director (Private Institutions), College Education, Block-Iv, R.k.s. Sankul, J.l.n. Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

4. Principal (Nodal Officer), Government College, Gangapur City Rajasthan.

5. University Of Kota Through Its Registrar, Near Kabir Circle, Mbs Marg, Swami Vivekanand Nagar,kota, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

(39) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1057/2021

Rahul Chandija Memorial College, Vill. Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Secretary Bhanwar Lal Gurjar S/o Kalyan Sahai, Age 40 Years, R/o Vill. Ghata Jaldhari, Post Basna, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur (Raj.)

(18 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, College Education, Commissionerate Of College Education, Jaipur.

3. University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(40) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8189/2021

Gyan Kunj College, Ladunda, Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu Through Its Secretary Mahaveer Prasad S/o Prabhat Ram Age About 37 Years, R/o Ladunda, Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, College Education, Commissionerate Of College Education, Jaipur.

3. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Shekhawati University, Sikar, Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

(41) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8648/2021

Maa Bhagwati Degree College, Pichuna, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) Through Its Secretary Shri Jagdish Prasad Chaturvedi S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 58 R/o Village And Post Pichuna, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner Cum Special Secretary, College Education, Sikha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Adv.

Ms.Pragya Seth, Adv.

Ms.Sarah S. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Naveen Dhuvan, Adv.

Mr. Manu Bhargava, Adv.

Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Adv.

Mr. B.L. Saini, Adv.

Mr. Vijay Jain, Adv.

Mr. K.A. Khan, Adv.

(19 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Mr. Atar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Adv. for Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG M. Aditya Sharma, Dy.GC Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Sudhir Yadav, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment / Order REPORTABLE Reserved On 15/02/2022 Pronounced On 11/03/2022

1. All these writ petitions involving almost common cause are

listed before this Court under the order dated 17/11/2021 passed

by the learned Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan &

ors. Vs. Lok Manya Tilak College, Ramgarh, Alwar (DB Special

Appeal Writ No.690/2021) whereby the Hon'ble Division Bench

observed as under:-

"Learned counsel for the appellant-State Government stated that against similar interim order passed by the learned Single Judge the State had preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)No.646/2021 which was disposed of on 17.08.2021 giving liberty to the petitioner to move the learned Single Judge for fixing earlier date of hearing. Consequently, request was made to the learned Single Judge and those petitions are coming up for hearing on 22.11.2021. Let Civil Writ Petition No.17770/2019 also be tagged along with the similar cases before the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

2. As per observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench, referred

to above, all the connected matters were tagged either as per

directions of this Court or on insistence of learned Advocates

representing various parties having common cause.

3. All these writ petitions were categorized in three broad

categories and lead matters were taken up for disposal qua the

(20 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

issues which were identical on facts but were having different

prayers.

4. The first set of writ petition was qua the declaration of policy

issued by the Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan as

without jurisdiction qua the imposition of penalty for regularizing

the deficiencies in temporary recognition as ultra-vires and illegal.

In this regard, the lead case of Sita Devi Educational Society Vs.

State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No.13200/2019) was

taken up which was argued by learned Senior Counsel-Mr.

Mahendra Shah.

5. In second set of writ petitions, apart from seeking directions

to the respondents for issuance of No Objection Certificate, an

additional prayer was made for striking down Clause 13 of the

Private College Policy for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 and in

this regard, the lead case of Lok Manya Tilak College Vs. State of

Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No.17770/2019) was taken up

which was argued by Mr. Manu Bharagava, Adv. and other

respective counsels.

6. The third and last category of writ petitions was qua prayers

for issuance of directions to the respondents for issuance of NOC

or for directions to the University to extend affiliation or for

declaration of students from ex-student to regular student or for

permitting the students to appear in the examination or for

extension of temporary recognition. In this regard, the lead matter

in Saraswati College, Reni, Alwar (SB Civil Writ Petition

No.3292/2021) was argued by Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Adv. and

other respective counsels.

7. Upon hearing the aforesaid bunch matters, the first and

foremost argument which was taken up by learned Senior Counsel

(21 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Mr. Mahendra Shah pertained to the powers of the Commissioner,

College Education for imposition of pecuniary punishment by way

of penalty for compounding the deficiencies for grant of temporary

recognition and regularizing the same by imposition of the penalty

for issuance of NOC. It was submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that

if the penal provisions of the policy for various years are declared

ultra-vires, illegal and beyond jurisdiction of the Commissioner,

College Education, the instant bunch matters can be decided and

the consequential relief asked for in the prayers can be granted

without adverting to the issues of NOC/Policy and categorization of

the students.

8. In the light of the said submission and on agreement being

reflected by respondents' counsels appearing for the State,

Universities represented by Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Mr. Vinod Gupta

and others, at the outset, it was agreed upon to consider these

matters on the point of competence of the Commissioner, College

Education for issuance of policy and more particularly qua the

powers of imposing penalty under the same and whether the same

is legal, jurisdictionally valid and permissible under the Rajasthan

Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 or not?

9. Mr. Mahendra Shah, learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the

provisions of Sections 2(e), 2(p), 3, 5, 7, 33, 34, 42 and 43 of the

Act of 1989 which read as under:-

"2. Definition 2(a)....

2(b)....

2(c)....

2(d)....

2(e) "Competent Authority" means any officer or authority authorised by the State Government, by notification, to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act for such area or in relation to such class of recognised Non-Government

(22 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

educational institutions as may be specified in the notification;

2(f)....

2(g)....

2(h)....

2(i)......

2(j)....

2(k)....

2(l)....

2(m)....

2(n)....

2(o)....

2(p) "non-Government educational institution" means any college, school, training institute or any other institution, by whatever name designated, established and run with the object of imparting education or preparing or training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction recognised by the State or Central Government or functioning for the educational, cultural or physical development of the people in the State and which is neither owned nor managed by the State or Central Government or by any University or local authority or other authority owned or controlled by the State or Central Government;

3. Recognition of institutions.-- (1) Except in the case of institution affiliated to a University or recognised or to be recognised by the Board, the Competent Authority may, on a application made to it in the prescribed form and manner, recognise a non- Government educational institution on fulfilment of such terms and conditions as may be prescribed :

[Provided that no institution shall be recognised unless it has been registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (Act No. 28 of 1958) or it is being run by a public trust registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (Act No. 42 of 1959) or by trust created in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (Central Act No. 2 of 1882).] (2) Every application for recognition of an institution shall be entertained and considered by the Competent Authority and the decision thereon shall be communicated to the applicant within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the application and, where recognition is refused, the reasons

(23 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

therefor shall also be communicated to the applicant within the said period.

5. Withdrawal of recognition.-- Where the management of an institution obtains recognition by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material particulars or where, after obtaining recognition, an institution fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 3, the Competent Authority granting the recognition may, after giving such management a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, withdraw the recognition.

7. Grant of aid to recognised institutions.--[(1) No aid shall be claimed by an institution as a matter of right and an aid granted under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder may be stopped by the State Government at any time.] (2) Unrecognised institution shall not be eligible to receive any aid.

(3) Subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, the sanctioning authority may sanction and distribute aid to recognised institutions from time to time in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed.

(4) The aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the institution as may be prescribed.

(5) No amount out of aid given for salary of the employees of an institution shall be used for any other purpose.

(6) The sanctioning authority may stop, reduce or suspend aid on breach of any of the terms and conditions prescribed in this behalf. (7) The amount of aid may normally be paid to the secretary of the managing committee of an institution but, in special circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, such amount may be paid to any person authorised by the Director of Education or by any other officer empowered by him in this behalf.

33. Penalty for transfer or closure of a recognised institution without notice and without satisfying the competent authority.-- Any person who contravenes the provisions of Section 13 or Section 14 or where any such contravention is committed by an association, every member of the managing committee of such association shall, on

(24 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

conviction, be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees :

Provided that such member of the managing committee, who has not participated in it or who has agreed upon such decision, shall not be liable to any penalty under this Section.

34. Penalty for not discharging the duties of secretary.-- A person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 9 or Section 12 or where any such contravention is committed by an association, every member of managing committee shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees :

Provided that such member of the managing committee, who has not participated in it or who not agreed upon such decision, shall not be liable to any penalty under this Section

42. Delegation of powers.-- It shall be lawful for the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to delegate to any authority or officer of the Education Department all or any of the powers vested in it by this Act and to withdraw any power so delegated.

43. Power to make rules.-- (1) The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing powers, such rules may provide for --

(a) the terms and conditions for the grant of recognition to non-Government educational institutions;

(b) the maintenance of recognised institutions;

(c) the giving of grants-in-aid to recognised institutions;

(d) the levy, regulation and collection of fees in recognised institutions;(e) regulating rates of fees in recognised institutions;

(f) regulating admissions to recognised institutions which are receiving aid out of State funds by making special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes;

(25 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

(g) the manner in which accounts, registers or records shall be maintained in aided institutions and the authority responsible for such maintenance;

(h) the submission of returns, statements, reports and accounts by Secretaries of the managing committees of recognised institutions;

(i) the inspection of recognised institutions and the officer by whom inspection shall be done;

(j) the mode of keeping and auditing of accounts of recognised institutions;

(k) the standards of education and courses of study; and

(l) all matters expressly required or allowed by this Act to prescribed.

(3) All rules made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after they are so made, before the House of the State Legislature, while it is in session, for a period of not less than fourteen days which may be comprises in one session or in two successive session and if before the expiry of the session which they are so laid or of the session immediately following, the House of the State Legislature makes any modification in any of such rules or resolves that any such rule should not be made, such rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."

10. He further relied upon the Rajasthan Non-Government

Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service

Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 and more particularly, G.S.R. 52,

Rules 2(f), 3, 5, 7 which read as under:-

G.S.R. 52 : In exercise of the powers conferred by section 43 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the State Government hereby makes the following rules regulating the Recognition Grant-in-Aid and Service conditions etc. of the Non-Government Educational Institutions.

2. Definitions -

2(a).......

                                            (26 of 43)                 [CW-13200/2019]


      2(b).......
      2(c).......
      2(d).......
      2(e).......

2(f) "Competent Authority" means any officer or authority, authorised by the State Government, by notification, to perform the functions of the competent authority under these Rules, for such area or in relation to such class of recognised Non-Government educational institution as may be specified in the notification;

3. Recognition of Institution.- (1) Every institution except those affiliated to a University or recognised by the Board [or imparting elementary education from Class I to VIII] seeking recognition must be registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958.

(2) Except in the case of institutions which are either affiliated a University or recognised by the Board, [or imparting elementary education from Class I to VIII] the Competent Authority as specified in Appendix - III may, on an application made to it in the prescribed Form (Appendix - I), recognize a Non-Government Educational Institution on fulfilment of such terms and conditions as prescribed hereafter. (3) Every application for recognition of an institution shall be entertained and considered by the competent authority and the decision thereon shall be communicated to the applicant within the period as prescribed hereafter.

5. Procedure for Recognition.- (1) The educational institutions, except those affiliated to any University or recognised by the Board, [or imparting elementary education from Class I to VIII] willing to get recognition, shall submit an application in the prescribed Form (Appendix - I) to the competent authority as specified in Appendix - III, provided if fulfills all terms and conditions as laid down by the Government from time to time.

(2) The institution shall submit its application to the Competent Authority latest by 28th February. (3) The Competent Authority shall maintain a register of all applications received in the following proforma :-

S. Dat Name of Date of Name and Findings Decision Signature Remarks

(27 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

No. e Institutio Inspectio Designatio of of the of the n n n of Inspectio competen competen Inspection n report t t Officer authority authority

(4) The competent authority shall complete the scrutiny of all the applications so received latest by 31st March and arrange for inspection by a party comprising -

(i) (a) Director of Education or its nominated gazetted officer, or (b) Competent authority as per Appendix - III;

(ii) One Educationist having regard to the status of the institution;

(iii) The Head of the Account Branch of the office of the competent authority.

(5) The Inspecting Party shall inspect the institution keeping in mind the prescribed norms and conditions prescribed in Appendix - II and submit its report latest by 30th April to the competent authority, who shall, by 15th May, ask for the additional information, if any, required from the institution.

(6) The Inspection Party shall record a clear recommendation with reference to each of the prescribed terms and conditions and give its recommendations for continuance of temporary recognition or permanent recognition as the case may be.

(7) The Institution shall furnish the required information as envisaged in (5) above to the Competent Authority latest by 15th June. (8) The competent Authority shall inform the institution concerned of its final decision, under registered post latest by 30th June.

(9) The Competent Authority shall also arrange for inspection of the institutions from time to time for supervision over the activities and functions of the institutions and record its findings on the file maintained for the purpose.

7. Withdrawal of Recognition.- (1) The competent Authority granting the recognition may, after giving to the management a reasonable

(28 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

opportunity for showing-cause against the proposed action for withdrawal of recognition, withdraw its temporary or permanent recognition [granted under this Chapter] in the following circumstances :-

(a) if the management of an institution has obtained recognition by fraud/misrepresentation or suppression of material particulars or if, after obtaining recognition, an institution fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions prescribed in Appendix -II of these rules;

(b) if the management has closed down the educational institution or any of its part without obtaining prior approval of the Competent Authority;

(c) if the management has transferred the educational institution to any other building or place without obtaining prior approval of the competent authority;

(d) if the management of the institution has been transferred to any other management committee/institution without obtaining prior approval of the Competent Authority;

(e) if on the expiry of the period of temporary recognition the management has failed to submit an application in the prescribed form to the competent Authority either for extension of the term of temporary recognition or for grant of permanent recognition;

(f) if the management of the institution fails to make irregular payment of full pay and allowances through an account payee cheque to its employees before 15th of every next month.

(2) On being satisfied that the institution has failed to comply with any of the terms and conditions specified in sub-rule (1), the competent authority may after giving the institution an opportunity of being heard, suspend the recognition for a specific period. Thereafter if the competent authority is satisfied that the said institution has shown satisfactory improvement within the period specified, it may allow the recognition to continue.

(3) Ordinarily recognition once given to an educational institution shall continue upto the end of an academic session. But in cases of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of the material facts on which recognition was granted or in cases, where the institution has failed in timely compliance of the orders/directions of the Director of Education of the State Government, the Competent Authority may after giving management a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the

(29 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

proposed action, withdraw the recognition even during the raids of the academic session.

(4) No institution shall be given recognition retrospectively.

Explanation-

(1) In cases, where recognition given earlier, is withdrawn, but conferred again, such institution shall be termed as new institution.

(2) In case of opening of a branch by the institution at a new place, such branch of the institution at a new place, such branch of the institution shall be termed as new institution and its application for recognition shall be decided accordingly."

11. While placing reliance upon the said provisions, it was

submitted by learned counsels for the petitioners that while

issuing the policy for Non-Government Private Educational

Institutions, the Commissioner, College Education has gone

beyond his jurisdiction as he has neither taken approval from the

Governor as required under Articles 162, 163 and 166 of the

Constitution of India nor as per mandate of Sections 33 and 34 of

the Act of 1989, the penalty can be levied on any other instances

than as prescribed under those Sections. As per Sections 33 & 34

of the Act of 1989, the penalty can be imposed only when there is

contravention of the provisions of Section 13 or 14 of the Act of

1989 or where there is contravention of provisions of Sections 9 or

12 of the Act of 1989 and in that case also, the maximum amount

of penalty which can be imposed is Rs.1000/-. He further

submitted that in terms of Section 42 of the Act of 1989, the

delegation of powers can be exercised by way of specific

delegation of any power vested under the Act to be exercised by

the competent authority i.e. by the State Government only in

cases when notification is issued and published in Official Gazette.

He submitted that in the cases in hand, there is no notification

issued by the State Government or approved by the Governor of

(30 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

the State which has been published in the Official Gazette

whereby penalty can be imposed and the temporary recognition

can be regularized on payment of exorbitant penalty specified in

the particular clauses of the policies issued on academic year

basis. He further submitted that in terms of Section 43 of the Act

of 1989 which gives power to make Rules to the State

Government for carrying into effect all the provisions of the Act of

1989, there is no express provision to impose penalty or if reliance

is placed on Clause (l) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 43 of the Act

of 1989, the same has to be prescribed in the Rules of 1993. The

Rules of 1993 nowhere delegate the powers for imposition of

penalty for regularizing the deficiencies for grant/extension of

temporary recognition and therefore, he submitted that

withholding of NOC on account of non-deposition of the penalty,

imposed by way of Policy, is not only illegal but without

jurisdiction. He placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in

The Central Bank of India Vs. Their Workmen: AIR 1960 SC

12; General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Ors. vs.

Subhash Chandra Yadav and Ors.: (1988) 2 SCC 351 to

contend that it is not permissible for the Commissioner, College

Education under the Act of 1989 to enlarge the scope of the main

provisions of the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993. The acts of

the Executives cannot override the provisions of the statute or the

rules framed thereunder. Learned Sr. Counsel further relied upon

Article 166 of the Constitution of India and contended that for

delegation of powers as specified under Section 42 of the Act of

1989, the authentication and sanction of the Governor was must

and the approval by the State Government was mandatory

alongwith publication in the Official Gazette. He relied upon the

(31 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

judgments rendered by the Apex Court in M.R.F. Ltd. and Ors.

Vs. Manohar Parrikar and Ors.: (2010) 11 SCC 374 and

Shanti Sports Club and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and

Ors.: (2009) 15 SCC 705. He lastly relied upon the judgment of

the Apex Court in Canon India Private Limited vs.

Commissioner of Customs: AIR 2021 SC 1699, more

particularly Paras 12 to 15 wherein it has been held that when the

statute confers the power to perform an act in a specific manner,

then the same must be honoured in that manner. Paras 12 to 15

of the said judgment in Canon India Private Limited (supra)

reads as under:-

"12. The nature of the power to recover the duty, not paid or short paid after the goods have been assessed and cleared for import, is broadly a power to review the earlier decision of assessment. Such a power is not inherent in any authority. Indeed, it has been conferred by Section 28 and other related provisions. The power has been so conferred specifically on "the proper officer" which must necessarily mean the proper officer who, in the first instance, assessed and cleared the goods i.e. the Deputy Commissioner Appraisal Group. Indeed, this must be so because no fiscal statute has been shown to us where the power to re-open assessment or recover duties which have escaped assessment has been conferred on an officer other than the officer of the rank of the officer who initially took the decision to assess the goods.

13. Where the statute confers the same power to perform an act on different officers, as in this case, the two officers, especially when they belong to different departments, cannot exercise their powers in the same case. Where one officer has exercised his powers of assessment, the power to order re- assessment must also be exercised by the same officer or his successor and not by another officer of another department though he is designated to be an officer of the same rank. In our view, this would result into an anarchical and unruly operation of a statute which is not contemplated by any canon of construction of statute.

(32 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

14. It is well known that when a statute directs that the things be done in a certain way, it must be done in that way alone. As in this case, when the statute directs that "the proper officer" can determine duty not levied/not paid, it does not mean any proper officer but that proper officer alone. We find it completely impermissible to allow an officer, who has not passed the original order of assessment, to re- open the assessment on the grounds that the duty was not paid/not levied, by the original officer who had decided to clear the goods and who was competent and authorised to make the assessment. The nature of the power conferred by Section 28(4) to recover duties which have escaped assessment is in the nature of an administrative review of an act. The Section must therefore be construed as conferring the power of such review on the same officer or his successor or any other officer who has been assigned the function of assessment. In other words, an officer who did the assessment, could only undertake re- assessment [which is involved in Section 28(4)].

15. It is obvious that the re-assessment and recovery of duties i.e. contemplated by Section 28(4) is by the same authority and not by any superior authority such as Appellate or Revisional Authority. It is, therefore, clear to us that the Additional Director General of DRI was not "the" proper officer to exercise the power Under Section 28(4) and the initiation of the recovery proceedings in the present case is without any jurisdiction and liable to be set aside."

12. Mr. Shah, learned Sr. counsel further submitted that in the

given cases in hand, on perusal of the policy, there is no reference

of any provision of the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993. There is

no approval and sanction as per rules of business provided by the

State. None of the powers given under the Act of 1989 or the

Rules of 1993, referred above, gives sanction to the

Commissioner, College Education to enlarge the scope of the Act

of 1989 by making a condition of deposition of penalty for

issuance of NOC when there is deficiency for grant of temporary

(33 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

recognition. He, therefore, contended that the policy issued by the

Commissioner, College Education to the extent it has proposed

penalty clause, needs to be set aside and the recovery orders for

issuance of NOC by imposing exorbitant penalties is not only

illegal, without jurisdiction but also ultra-vires to the provisions of

the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993.

13. In the second set of writ petitions, Mr. Manu Bhargava,

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no

deficiency on the part of the institution for non-grant of temporary

recognition and the orders of recovery issued by the respondents

are bad. It was further submitted that the College was established

on 25/06/2005 and the respondent no.2 has issued him temporary

NOC after consideration of requisites for the Session 2005-06 as

the College was situated in lagging area and the Government

wanted to promote the said area by promoting private colleges for

imparting education. It was further submitted that ever since

25/06/2005 till date, the temporary recognition is granted,

inspection team is regularly visiting the College on yearly basis. In

the year 2007, the deficiency qua the land was also fulfilled by

them and as per him, no defects/deficiency for grant of

temporary/permanent recognition exists as on date. He submitted

that on 27/08/2019, the respondent no.3-University directed the

petitioners-colleges for submitting NOC for the Session 2019-2020

or else to deposit penalty so that result of the students may be

declared. Earlier also, under compulsion in terms of Private

Colleges Policy, a sum of Rs.1.75 lac was deposited on 17/12/2014

and again in compliance of interim orders of this Court, a sum of

Rs.3 lac was deposited at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per year on

account of deficiency for issuance of temporary recognition and

(34 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

NOC so that the students may not suffer. He submitted that the

provisions of Private Colleges Policy for the Academic Session

2015-16 and 2016-17 are illegal, without jurisdiction in as much

as submitted in Para No.12(a) of the writ petition, a sum of Rs. 5

lac and then Rs.6 lac have been demanded which is exorbitant and

nowhere specified in law. The Commissioner of College Education,

on his whims and fancies, for different years in question, is

imposing different penalties and relaxing the same even for the

institutions established in lagging/backward areas. He submitted

that when the College was set up and temporary recognition was

granted, no such clause ever existed. He further submitted that

the penalty can only be imposed if the same exists under the Act

and the Rules. He stated that on account of non-issuance of NOC,

the students are suffering as their result is withheld as yet and

they are categorized as ex-students and not regular students.

14. In third set of writ petitions, Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Adv. and

other counsels for the respective petitioners submitted that as per

directions of this Court, the petitioners-colleges in their case have

deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on yearly basis for grant of

NOC/affiliation but yet result of their students has not been

declared. They submitted that over the years, after establishment

of college, this lethargic measure is taken up by the respondents

whereby either NOC is not issued or affiliation is withheld in the

middle of the course because of which the students enrolled with

the college/university are not permitted to appear in the

examination or their results are withheld or they are categorized

as ex-students instead of regular students. Learned counsels,

thus, requested for early disposal of the matter and for lenient

view.

(35 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

15. Per-contra, Mr. Prakhar Gupta for Dr. VB Sharma, AAG,

learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Vinod Gupta, for

the concerned University submitted that though Chapter-VII of the

Act of 1989 specifies that penalty can be imposed as per

provisions of Sections 33 and 34 but as per provisions of Section

42 read with Section 43 of the Act of 1989 which has delegated

powers upon the Executives/competent authorities of the

Education Department and as per provisions of Section 43 of the

Act of 1989 whereby power to make rules have been entrusted

with the State Government, Rule 7 of the Rules of 1993 has been

formulated.

16. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that as

per provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1993, the recognition

granted by the competent authority can be withheld and as per

provisions of Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1993, referred above,

where the institution has failed in timely compliance of the

orders/directions of the Director of Education or the State

Government, the competent authority, after giving reasonable

opportunity, can withheld the recognition even during mid of the

academic session. Though learned counsel for the State was very

fair in his submission that qua the students, the State takes

lenient view and the State does not want to disturb or affect the

career of the students in any manner or debar them from

appearing in the examination on account of default of the

petitioners-colleges. Learned counsel for respondents relied upon

judgment of the Apex Court in St. Johns Teachers Training

Institute vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher

Education and Ors.: (2003) 3 SCC 321 to contend that under

the delegated powers under administrative law, if the question

(36 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

comes qua excessive delegation, it has to be analyzed with regard

to the subject matter, the scheme of the Act, the provisions of the

statute including its preamble and the factual and circumstantial

background of its enactment. There would be presumption in

favour of force and if two constructions are possible, the one

which makes it valid should be adopted.

17. While placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel

for the respondents submitted that all the private colleges are

running on temporary recognition, they are having deficiencies of

one kind or the other illustratively qua the infrastructure in the

form of deficiency in land, building, staff, teaching faculty,

furniture or any other reason. In-spite of running over the years

and more than decades, they are not able to overcome the

deficiencies and on account of the said fact, the students who are

admitted suffer and are made scapegoat and a lenient view is

taken taking into consideration their career. The same cannot be

repeated over the years and as a result, while exercising the

powers under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1993, the Commissioner,

College Education, while formulating the policy, has added a

penalty clause whereby on depositing the specified amount for the

respective year, the temporary recognition can be continued upto

a limit. He further relied upon judgment of Apex Court in State of

H.P. and Ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik

Prishikshan Kendra Sangh: (2011) 6 SCC 597 to contend that

while making judicial review of the policy matters, the Courts

should be slow and interference should be made only when the

policy runs contrary to the mandate of the Constitution or the

provisions of law. He submitted that in the case in hand, the

policy for the private colleges was formulated in conformity with

(37 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

the provisions of the Act, Rules and by following due procedure of

the rules of business. Therefore, the policy is legal and valid.

Similar arguments were advanced by the counsels for the

University and the other departments.

18. This Court has considered records of the cases in hand, the

submissions advanced by the respective counsels as well as the

judgments cited at bar.

19. On perusal of various provisions of the Act of 1989 and the

Rules of 1993 framed therein as well as the preamble of the Act of

1989, it is more than clear that the Act of 1989 was formulated for

better organization and development of education in Non-

Government Educational Institutions in the State of Rajasthan.

Also taking into consideration that most of the private colleges in

the present bunch of writ petitions are situated in lagging areas

i.e. backward areas where there was non-availability of such

institutions qua the higher education, the State Government has

given permission for setting up of private colleges in the field of

higher education on conditional basis only on account of the fact

that because of deficiency in infrastructure and funds, they were

not able to spread out education in the deep rooted areas of the

State of Rajasthan. Therefore, conditional permissions were given

for establishment of non-government educational institutions.

20. Some of the mandatory conditions for recognition included

that running of the college will be by a registered Society or a

Trust and that the institutions should meet the requirements as

specified in Appendix-2 of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1993 qua the

building, land, teaching faculty, furniture, library etc.

21. The private colleges like the petitioners were required to

have recognition in terms of Rule 3 and affiliation from the

(38 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

concerned University on meeting out the requirements under

Appendix-2

22. In the case in hand, the petitioners were granted temporary

recognition after due inspection, verification and the same was

continued. The affiliations were granted by the Universities and

the students were admitted on regular basis who have appeared

for examination over the years but on account of the alleged

deficiencies, in terms of private policy, for different years, penalty

and recovery was initiated and on account of non-deposition

thereof or any other reasons, the NOC was not issued and as a

consequence, the affiliation was also either not extended or

withheld and disputes arose for not releasing admit card to the

students for appearing in examination or for non-declaration of

their result. As as result, the said sets of writ petitions were filed

before this Court with the prayer for grant of NOC/affiliation,

appearing in the examination and changing the category from ex-

student to regular student, etc.

23. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and analyzing

the provisions of the Act of 1989, it is very clear that the only

power for imposition of penalty under given set of circumstances

for violation of respective Sections is enshrined under Section 33

and 34 of the Act of 1989. No other power for imposition of

penalty in express meaning is specified in the Act of 1989 or in the

Rules of 1993. Even the counsel for the respondents were not able

to refute the said argument and specify the notification whereby

the powers were delegated to the Commissioner, College

Education for imposition of penalty, for regularizing the deficiency

and grant of temporary recognition. Further, learned counsels for

the petitioners have specified that neither under the provisions of

(39 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Section 43 of the Act of 1989 or under the Rules of 1993, the

power of imposition of penalty by virtue of which penalty can be

incorporated in the policy has been specified. Even on perusal of

the Private Colleges Policies, no provision of law or the rules has

been specified or referred whereby the penalty is imposed or

delegated.

24. The only contention submitted by learned counsel for the

respondent-State was that under Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1993, if

the institution has failed in complying with the directions, the

recognition can be withdrawn by the competent authority or the

Director of Education but Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1993 nowhere

specifies that penalty can be imposed and grant of temporary

recognition/permanent recognition can be regularized or

extended.

25. The reliance place by learned counsel for the respondent-

State upon the judgment in St. Johns Teachers Training

Institute (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the instant

cases because it is a settled position of law that delegated powers

should be permissible under the Act. In the given case, by virtue

of Section 42 of the Act of 1989, neither any notification was

issued for imposition of penalty nor the same was published nor

approved by the State Government. In the cases in hand, suo-

motu powers were exercised by the Commissioner, College

Education voluntarily without any basis, without any authority of

law which was never specified under the Act of 1989 or the Rules

of 1993.

26. It is true that the Courts should be slow in interfering with

the policy decisions but it is also a settled law that judicial review

is permissible if any policy, instruction, letter or direction is issued

(40 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

illegally without any authority of law, beyond the powers given

under the Act and is overriding the provisions of the superior laws

like the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993.

27. For the reasons stated above, the judgment cited by learned

counsel for the State in State of H.P. and Ors. (supra) is also

distinguishable and is not applicable in the given set of cases.

28. Learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the

judgments rendered by the Apex Court in The Central Bank of

India (supra) wherein it is held that under the ambit of policy,

the scope and provisions of the Act and Rules cannot be by-

passed.

29. It is also to be considered that the Hon'ble Apex Court in

very categorical terms has held that the subordinate/ delegated

legislation has to be tested with reference to the constitutional

provisions and the rules of business and in conformity or

substance.

30. In the present matters, neither the Act of 1989 or the Rules

of 1993 have given any specific power for imposition of penalty

other than Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 1989. Even the

policies issued by the Commissioner of College Education are in

consonance as at the time of very formulation of the Colleges,

there was no penal clause and in the later years, i.e. in 2015 and

2016, it was exercised exorbitantly to the extent of Rs.6 lac and in

the later years, it was reduced to the extent of Rs.50,000/- on per

year basis, without any reasoning, merely on the whims and

fancies of the Commissioner, College Education.

31. It has been held in the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India

(UOI) and Ors.: (2007) 13 SCC 673 and in M.R.F. Ltd. and

(41 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Ors. (supra) that under administrative law under delegated

legislation or ancillary or subordinate functions i.e. the power to

fill up the details, directions can be passed or policies can be

framed only to the extent which are permitted by the Act; they

should supplement the Act or the Rules and they cannot supplant

the Act; they cannot be in violation of the parent Act and if that is

so, such exercise of powers is unauthorized, ultra-vires and illegal.

32. Similarly, in bunch of connected petitions decided by the

Division Bench of this Court in DB CWP 969/2022 titled as

Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. decided on

27.01.2022 while dealing with impugned notices issued by

Assessing Officers under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

reopening assessment of various years held that a subordinate

legislation can not travel beyond the powers vested by the Act and

the delegated legislation has to be within four corners of the

Parent Statute.

33. In the given case in hand, even the phraseology 'delegated

legislation' or 'delegated instructions' cannot be continued for the

reasons that neither the policy was issued under the provisions of

Section 42 of the Act of 1989 nor they had any authority under

Section 43 of the Act of 1989. The respondents have ultra-vires to

the Act of 1989 and Rules of 1993 imposed, invoked and charged

the petitioners which was neither authorized nor permitted or

delegated by the Act and Rules.

34. On account of the said facts, this Court is of the view that

the prayer so made by the petitioners qua declaration of policy for

the respective years whereby the respondents have imposed

penalty provisions under the respective clause of the Private

Colleges Policy for the year 2015-2016 and for future years for the

(42 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

Academic Session 2018-2019 and 2021-2022 and pari-materia

provisions are illegal, ultravires and needs to be set aside.

35. The Private Colleges Policy whereby penalty provisions have

been introduced are also illegal on account of the fact that the

Commissioner, College Education or any other authority has not

been delegated the powers under the Act of 1989. In the light of

judgment of the Apex Court in Canon India Private Limited

(supra), the Commissioner, College Education was not having any

authority to issue such directions/ instructions /policy for

imposition of penalty.

36. In the light of discussions made above, following directions

are issued:

(1) The penalty clause in the policy/instructions for Private

Colleges issued by the Commissioner, College Education, for

different years in question, is held to be beyond his power and is

declared illegal.

(2) The penalty deposited by the respective petitioner/college

under the orders of the Court or in the light of the provisions of

the Private Colleges Policy be refunded to the petitioners/colleges

within a period of sixty days failing which interest @ 6% will

accrue on the same after lapse of 60 days.

(3) It is directed that the amount refunded to the

petitioners/colleges by the respondents in light of the above

directions, shall be deposited by the respective

petitioners/colleges in the "Student Welfare Fund", and be used

for the welfare and betterment of students in activities like

clearing dues of students who are unable to deposit fee, medical

care, library, and other amenities and facilities needed for and by

the students and not be used for any other purpose.

(43 of 43) [CW-13200/2019]

(4) The State as well as respondents are directed to ensure that

on account of present dispute, students should not be made to

suffer and their results, mark-sheets, admit cards, other

documents should not be withheld and be declared/released in

capacity of regular students forthwith immediately, without any

fail. The respondents are directed to assist and help the students

in question on 24×7 basis. No student should be deprived of

appearance in any future examination or appearance on account

of present dispute as the petitioners have submitted that the non-

declaration of result is causing prejudice to the students for

appearing in future examinations including competitive

examinations.

37. All these writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the

directions and observations made above. All pending applications

also stand disposed of in above terms.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

RAGHU/60-71,80-86,98,101-115,117-118,122-123,125-126

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)