St. Soldier Law College vs Guru Nanak Dev University

K. Kannan, J.

CM No. 10253 of 2014

Application is allowed, as prayed for. Replication to the written statement filed by respondents 1 and 2 along with Annexure P9 is taken on record.

Civil Writ Petition No. 12582 of 2014

The petitioner-college has secured a sanction of the Bar Council of India for seeking for affiliation for B.Com. LL.B course with the University for the yearly sessions 2012-13 to 2014-15. The petitioner''s case is that if the application was filed for last year 2013-14, the University did not favourably consider and for the present year when the affiliation is sought again with the University after taking the decision of the Bar Council on 19.05.2014, the University declined affiliation without setting out reasons, simply by stating, "as per the decision of the Vice Chancellor, it is informed that you cannot be granted affiliation for initiating the B.Com. LL.B 5 years course w.e.f. 2014-15". At the time of arguments, the ground set up is that as per Rule 9.2 of the Statute of the University, the application for starting a new subject or class must be sent by January 31st of the year in which the college proposes to start the subjects. It is also the contention of the University that in terms of clause 4(i) of the Guru Nanak Dev University Act of 1969, the University shall make provision for imparting education and for promotion research in the humanities and other subjects as it thinks fit. The contention through the counsel is that the University enjoys full autonomy to decide not to have a course. The contention of the petitioner is that when a professional body, like the Bar Council of India, which recognizes the need and merit of starting a B.Com. LL.B. Course, grants approval to seek for affiliation with the University, the University must see this as its responsibility to grant affiliation and recognize the imperatives of approval to what the State Bar Council recommends. The colleges are involved in strengthening the quality of education and University cannot reiterate a plea made in the manner in which it has been done. The counsel refers me to the impugned order dated 18.06.2014 which is cryptic in its expressions that as per the decision of the Vice Chancellor, affiliation cannot be granted.

The counsel for the University feeds into this slender non-speaking order weighty arguments with reference to the Statute and Act. The Statute requires the application to be given before the January of the year in which the course is sought to be started and since, in this case, the application has come about subsequently, the same cannot be entertained. I would accept this reason if it was tenable to find a place in the impugned order itself. If this was the only reason, then the University has a duty to explain how it dealt with the application which was filed the previous year within time before the stipulated period of January 2013. At that time, there was simply no consideration and the counsel for the University, however, is prepared to share that information that it was resolved that since the University did not have a main campus or a regional campus allowing for B.Com. LL.B course, it could not grant affiliation for any of the colleges affiliated to the University.

An order would require to be supported through reasons of what it shall contain and cannot be buttressed through props brought through clever pleadings and glib arguments of counsel. The Supreme Court held in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, that "when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out." The laconic order simply denying permission is insupportable.

I would only exhort to the University to shed its inertia and do what is required in such like situations. It is expected to act responsibly that would reflect the genuine aspiration of educational institutions and honour the Bar Council of India''s recommendations wherever they deserve. It is just not an answer that the University will not allow for a college to start the course, if it does not itself have the course in the main campus. Many colleges that are having diverse courses and even the very existence of several colleges have come about only by the fact that the University does not have the financial resources or manpower to start all the courses themselves and, therefore, they promote the cause of education by granting affiliation to colleges and ensure that they have the necessary infrastructure and faculty to impart education in the particular chosen field. It is another way of explaining the University''s own capabilities judged from the point of view of the possibilities of not starting various courses on their own but securing the value of education through helping several private institutes and colleges to establish new but useful courses, whose standard and institutional infrastructures could still be controlled by the University. I find the attitude displayed by the University that it will allow for "such courses as it may think fit" to mean that it may so choose not to think to allow for any course to be unfortunate. That cannot be the way of University could meaningfully contribute to the cause of education.

There ought to be a time line which the University must set to itself when a request for affiliation is brought. It ought to recognize also that if the professional regulatory bodies like a Bar Council of India recommends certain courses, then it should keep pace with needs of time and exercise upon such recommendations to device syllabi for various courses and help the University to flourish through various colleges. It is not as if a B.Com. LL.B course is a rare happening in Punjab and the petitioner-college is promoting a new stream of course which it seeks to start. There are so many Universities and Colleges which offer such courses and nearer home is the Punjab University itself which offers B.Com. LL.B. The University will have therefore examples to follow and cultivate avenues for improvement. This is merely a reminder to the University to do what it is required to do and to sensitize the University about how the expectations of the professional bodies are to be met.

I will not find, for the present, a justification for directing affiliation to be granted, not because the order is sound but because of practical difficulty that the statute of the University sets out through a time limit before when such an application could have been made. Be it known that if such an application is made, the University shall not resort to an action that it did for the previous year by allowing file to gather dust and not communicating its decision or in the manner done for the present year. It shall gear itself to a purposeful response when an appropriate application comes across it. I leave this case with the hope that the University understands its responsibilities and does not allow grass to grow under its own feet by meaningless one line response of refusal, the way it has dealt with in the impugned order and for the earlier year. Writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.