Nagarjuna University vs St. Anthony Educational Society and others

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, C.J.—These Writ Appeals by the Nagarjuna University, represented by its Registrar, Guntur are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 19464, 21167, 14687 and 13450 of 1997 respectively. Since all these appeals involve consideration of common questions of fact and law, we propose to dispose of the same by common judgment.

Grant of affiliation to a College is in the sole discretion of the concerned University and the role of the Judiciary is very restricted on that score, by reason of the fact that the Law Court cannot act as a superintendent of the activities of the University. The University has its due mechanism to appreciate and grant the necessary approval for affiliation and the Law Court neither has the expertise nor has the advantage of any material to appreciate so as to act as a superintendent of the affairs of the University.

From the contextual facts, it appears that two rival institutions, namely, St. Mark NTR College of Education and St. Mark NTR GMKN and M.R. B.Ed., College, claiming to be in the Management of St. Anthony Educational Society, Narasaraopet, have gone before the University for grant of affiliation to their respective Colleges. The University has chosen, however, not to grant affiliation to either of them by reason of pendency of a suit before the Civil Court regarding the rival claims of the institutions. It is by reason of the inaction on the part of the University in the matter of grant of affiliation, the rival institutions have filed W.P.No.13450 of 1997 and W.P.No. 14697 of 1997. W.P.No.19464 of 1997 is, however, filed against the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh recognising the institution - St. Mark NTR GMKN and M.R. B.Ed., College, the other Writ Petition No.21167 of 1997 is filed by two students of St. Mark NTR College of Education for a direction to the University to conduct practical examinations for the B.Ed., students of the said College and to declare the results of the students appeared through the said College, All these writ petitions have been dealt with by the learned single Judge by a Common Order. The learned single Judge while disposing of the above writ petitions passed order to the following effect :

"The authorities are directed to allot the students for B.Ed., Course 1997-98 to St. Mark N.T.R. G.M.K.N. and MR B.Ed., College tentatively and the Commissioner and Director of School Education, the second respondent herein shall appoint a Special Officer to take over the institution for the purpose of administration and management as far as B.Ed., Course is concerned. He shall proceed with the admission in accordance with rules and also the Management of the institution as far as this course is concerned. The Management of St. Mark N.T.R. G.M.K.N. and M.R. B. Ed., College shall render proper assistance to the Special Officer in this regard as and when required by him for carrying out his duties as directed above The students are also permitted to appear for B.Ed., course examination and their results shall be declared as and when they become due. The Principal District Munsif, Narasaraopet is directed to dispose of the suit O.S.No.229/96 as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The group of Mr. Koteshwar Rao and Mr. Rami Reddy shall cooperate with the trial of the suit and they shall not take unnecessary adjournments whenever the case is listed for trial. If ultimately the suit is dismissed the candidates who have been admitted in pursuance of these directions shall be transferred either to the colleges established by Mr. Koteswar Rao or Rami Reddy depending upon the decision of the Civil Court in this regard. It is further directed that for the students who have been permitted to prosecute B.Ed., course 1996-97 in St. Mark N.T.R. College of Education, St. Marck NTR GMKN and M.R. B.Ed., College, Narasaraopet and the practical examinations for the B.Ed., course shall be conducted if not already conducted within a reasonable time and the results shall be published after the examinations are over."

This langish narration of the order probably would not have been necessary if the extent of the authority of this Court as noted above be not restricted or limited. The learned single Judge, as a matter of fact, has directed not only as to the manner and the method in which the examinations are to be conducted but has also directed the University to act in a particular way. This, in our view, is not strictly permissible in the matter of exercise of writ jurisdiction. The expert body ought to be permitted a fuller display of its powers and the Law Court would not be justified in interfering with the discharge of that power conferred on the University in terms of the provisions of law. The facts herein depict that there is a civil suit pending between the two rival contenders and the University in its wisdom had thought it fit not to grant affiliation to either of them. But the learned single Judge thought it fit to direct the authorities to tentatively allot he students to a particular College in the B.Ed., course. This, in our view, is not permissible in law. It is not for the Law Courts to grant admission to students to any College or Colleges, but it is for the University to decide in which College the students are to be given admission. The order of the learned single Judge, in our opinion, is wholly without jurisdiction and the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Judge is totally erroneous. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside.

But it also placed on record that the Writ Court has no authority in law to direct the Civil Court to act in a particular fashion. The learned single Judge, however, we presume, in order to subserve the ends of justice and to expedite the matter, appears to have directed expeditious disposal of the suit. Though, strictly speaking, such a course is not permissible in law, but, we do lend our credence to the opinion expressed by the learned single Judge for expeditious disposal of the suit. We, therefore, place it on record that it is our desire also to have the civil suit disposed of expeditiously.

As regards the writ petition filed by the students and the appeal arising therefrom viz., W.A.No. 238 of 1998, we wish to place it on record that no act of Court should create or cause any prejudice to any student. It so happened in the present case that in terms of the orders of the Court students were admitted for the academic year 1996-97 and they have attended the classes and completed the course and have also appeared at the examinations conducted by the University through the specified Colleges. Since the same lias been pursued in terms of the orders of this Court, though not strictly in accordance with law, but to subserve the ends of justice and keeping the basic principle, namely, the act of Court ought not to create or cause prejudice to any one, in view, we direct that the results of the examinations held for the academic year 1996-97 be published by the University and the action of the University be treated as otherwise in accordance with law and the University would also be authorised to award necessary degree certificates to the successful candidates.

It is further ordered that in the event there being any application for affiliation pending with the University, the same be dealt with in accordance with law with utmost expedition and preferably within a period of three weeks from the date hereof

The Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.