Institution of Applied Medicines and Research Institute vs Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and others

Pradeep Kant and K.S. Rakhara, JJ.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ram Raj, Sri D.K. Arora learned Counsel appearing for the Chancellor and the learned Standing Counsel Sri Wasiquddin.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.4.2005 passed by the'' Chancellor by means of which he has been refused to grant affiliation for the courses of five years integrated Bachelor and Master in Pharmacy and five years integrated B. Pharma, M.B.A. in Pharmacy and four years integrated Master of SciencesDoctor of Philosophy (M.Sc. Ph.D.) in Biomedical Sciences.

The petitioner who is unaided private college, has sought approval/affiliation for the aforesaid courses with the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.

The course for which the affiliation is being asked for admittedly are not the approved courses of the University. It has been fairly stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this fact is not disputed rather he admits the position. His argument further is that the University has already sent a recommendation to the Principal Secretary to the Chancellor on 7.4.2005 for approving the aforesaid courses by amending the Statutes and the aforesaid courses be approved under Statue 7.16 by adding them at si. Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 in the list of the courses. The courses admittedly have yet not been included in the aforesaid list under the aforesaid Statute.

Mere sending of the recommendation by the Vice Chancellor would neither mean that the courses stand approved nor can be treated as newly added and approved courses of the University in the Statute nor any affiliation can be granted for the said courses in anticipation of such courses being approved.

An argument has been raised by Sri D.K. Arora that even the recommendation dated 7.4.2005 on which the petitioner relies cannot be treated to be a recommendation in the eyes of law, as per the provisions of the State Universities Act, 1973, as amended from time to time. Process for including adding or approving the new courses, has to be initiated in accordance with law which requires the involvement of the Board of Academic Council, the Board of Studies, and the Executive Council. If any proposal is to be sent, it has to be considered by the aforesaid bodies and thereafter, a decision is to be taken. The Vice Chancellor of his own has not been authorized under the Act or by the Statute to make any such recommendation individually.

Sri Ram Raj appearing for the petitioner says that he is not aware as to whether the Vice Chancellor, has sent his individual recommendation or there had been any such exercise on his part. The petition is also silent on this question.

We need not enter into this question any further in this writ petition for the simple reason that the petitioners'' claim for affiliation for the aforesaid courses has been refused on the ground that till date the courses do not find mention in the list of the approved courses and even if the AICTE does not give any approval to such courses, the same cannqt be granted to the petitioner, unless the courses are duly approved.

We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Chancellor. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.