Islamia Girls Junior College vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another

WP No. 11880 of 1997 was filed questioning the show-cause notice issued by the respondent-Board in Re No.60/ E4-1/94-95 dated 25-4-1997 and the same seemed to have been dismissed for default by an order dated 17-11-1997. Thereafter, the respondent-Board seemed to have passed a final order in Re No.60/E4-1/94-95 dated 31-3-1999, derecognising the petitioner-college and also instructed the management not to admit the students for the academic year 1999-2000. Further, the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education directed the petitioner-college to transfer the records to the Government Junior College for Girls, Nampally, Hyderabad. Having received the said order, the petitioner-college seemed to have realised that the above writ petition was dismissed for default and an application WP MP No.10958 of 1999 was filed for restoration of the writ petition to the file and this Court seemed to have restored the writ petition to file by an order dated 20-4-1999.

The petitioner seemed to have filed another WP No.9006 of 1999 questioning the final orders passed by the respondent-Board on 31-3-1999, derecognising the college. By order dated 28-4-1999 my learned brother Justice J. Chelameswar while directing notice on admission directed the office to post the matter before the first vacation Court. Accordingly the matter was posted in the first vacation Court. On 4-5-1999 the impugned order dated 31-3-1999 was suspended for a period of two weeks and the same was extended by another four weeks by an order dated 18-5-1999. Thereafter, when the matter came up before me on 16-6-1999, I extended the interim order until further orders. Thereafter, the respondent-Board not only filed a counter but also filed a petition seeking vacation of the interim orders. Now, both the writ petitions are listed before me for hearing.

The first writ petition, namely WP No. 11880 of 1997 was filed questioning the show-cause notice dated 25-4-1997. Though the said writ petition was restored to file in the year 1999, as final orders were passed and a separate writ petition (WP No.9006 of 1999) was filed questioning the validity of the final orders, the same has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Coming to the merits of the case (WP No.9006 of 1999) the Secretary of the respondent-Board passed a cryptic order stating that the petitioner-college was derecognised for the reasons mentioned in the show-cause notice. Even as per the counter filed by the respondent-Board it is seen that the respondent-Board had issued show-cause notice dated 14-9-1996, directing the petitioner-society to file its explanation by 25-9-1996, but the society seemed to have filed its explanation on 28-9-1996. Having not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner and the corrigendum published in Siyasat newspaper the respondent-Board issued another show-cause notice dated 25-4-1997, directing the petitioner to submit its explanation within 30 days from the date of receipt of show-cause notice. On 2-6-1997 initially, the petitioner-society seemed to have asked for two weeks time to submit explanation. Thereafter, by a letter dated 27-6-1997 the petitioner-society requested the respondent-Board to treat its reply dated 28-9-1996 as reply to the show-cause notice dated 25-4-1997. At any rate, from the letter dated 27-6-1997 filed by the petitioner-society the Board was requested to consider the explanation offered by it on 28-9-1996. But, unfortunately in the impugned order except stating that for the reasons mentioned in the show-cause notice the order of derecognition was passed and no other reasons were given. More so, how the explanation offered by the petitioner-society is not convincing and the circumstances that compelled the Secretary to pass the impugned order are not forthcoming. On that ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

Secondly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-society raised another contention that only the Board is competent to take a decision with regard to derecognition of any college but not the Secretary of the Board. Adverting to this contention, the respondent-Board in the counter stated that u/s 7(2)(a) and (b) of A.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 (Act No.2 of 1971) (for short ''the Act'') the Secretary shall be the chief executive officer and ex officio member of the Board and shall be responsible for the efficient functioning of the office and also stated that the impugned proceedings dated 31-3-1999 will be placed for consideration in the next Board meeting. It is not in dispute that under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 (for short ''the Rules'') the competent authority to grant or withdraw recognitition/affilation is the Board of Intermediate Education. u/s 2(3) of the Act the word ''Board'' means the Andhra Pradesh Board of Intermediate Education established u/s 3 of the Act. u/s 3 of the Act the Board shall consist of the Chairman of the Board, the ex officio members and the nominated members. From the counter the stand of the respondent-Board is that the Secretary being the chief executive officer and the ex officio member is entitled to pass the order. Section 7 deals with appointment of Secretary and his functions and of other employees of the Board. u/s 7(1) of the Act the Government shall appoint a Secretary to the Board for performing such functions as may be entrusted to him by or under this Act. u/s 7(2)(a) of the Act the Secretary shall be the chief executive officer of the Board and its committees and shall be responsible for implementing the resolutions of the Board or its committees. But the Secretary cannot usurp the powers of the Board on the ground that he is the ex officio member of the Board. He is responsible for the efficient functioning of its office. As long as the Board did not delegate the powers vested in it under Rule 9 of the Rules, the question of Secretary passing the impugned order by himself and placing it before the Board for ratification as and when it meets does not arise. Hence, the impugned order suffers from want of jurisdiction also.

For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation except to quash the impugned order and it is accordingly quashed. However, it is open to the respondent-Board to take action against the petitioner-society in accordance with law after giving notice to the petitioner-society and after considering the explanation offered by it. Any resolution or order that may be passed should be a speaking order indicating the mind of the respondent-Board in arriving at the decision.

With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.