The Governing Body, GGS College of Education and Another vs The Panjab University and Another

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—Petitioners have challenged public notice dated 12.1.2013 issued by respondent No. 1 by which the college is held to be unfit for grant of affiliation and not entitled to enroll students in the B.Ed. course; and has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to issue Roll numbers to the students. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the college has been set up by the Kalgidhar Technical Education Society [for short ''the Society'']. The National Council of Teachers Education [for short ''the NCTE''] granted recognition to the society to run B.Ed. course with intake capacity of 100 students, after its inspection dated 13.8.2006. It was also granted affiliation by respondent No. 1 on 24.8.2006 and recommended extension of affiliation after inspection on 10.6.2007. Consequently, after approval of the Senate and Syndicate, the College was granted affiliation by respondent No. 1 for session 2007-08 on 19.7.2007. It is alleged that the State Government without giving any opportunity of hearing withdrew the ''No Objection Certificate'' and directed respondent No. 1 not to allow admission to the petitioners/college and the students already admitted be shifted to different colleges. The University thus, stopped admissions in the petitioners/college on 10.8.2007 which was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No. 12684 of 2007, which has been admitted since 12.9.2008 with interim order. The college was recommended for B.Ed. course (1 unit) w.e.f. 2008-2009 for continuation of affiliation by the Syndicate on 23.3.2008. It is also alleged that one Naib Singh, who was earlier Chairman of the society and was removed from the said post by the majority decision, started making false and mischievous complaints. It is also pleaded that the petitioners came to know on 26.3.2012 that the NCTE has placed on its official website order of withdrawing the affiliation of the petitioners/college on the basis of show-cause-notice issued u/s 17 of the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 [for short ''the NCTE Act''] and because of that action, an order was passed on 4.4.2012 by respondent No. 1 by which respondent No. 1 had ordered that affiliated course of the college with this affiliating university accordingly stands automatically withdrawn as disaffiliated forthwith. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No. 6437 of 2012, inter alia, on the ground of lack of opportunity of hearing. The said writ petition was disposed of after quashing the order of respondent No. 1 directing both NCTE and respondent No. 1 to inspect the petitioner/college, grant hearing to the petitioners and after such effective hearing and consideration pass a final order within 21 days. It was also ordered that SSP, Muktsar would cause the investigation of the conduct of Naib Singh whether he has prima facie committed any cognizable offence and in case it is so then to proceed against him, in accordance with law. However, by way of an application bearing No. 7989 of 2012, Naib Singh approached this Court for recalling of the order dated 30.4.2012 passed against him. The said application was allowed on 14.9.2012 to the extent of directions contained in para 7 of the order dated 30.4.2012 and the remaining order was kept intact. Thereafter, the said Naib Singh filed a contempt petition against the Regional Director, NCTE and Registrar of Panjab University for intentionally and deliberately violating the order dated 30.4.2012 though allegedly he is nobody in the petitioners/college and had no capacity to file the contempt petition.

At the time of notice, operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court which is still continuing.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Section 30 of the Panjab University Act, 1947 Calendar Volume I Part I [for short ''the 1947 Act''], according to which the order of disaffiliation can be passed only by the Government i.e. Central Government as per Section 2(b) of the Act whereas the impugned order has been passed by the Syndicate. It is also submitted that the stand taken by respondent No. 1 is that it had never granted any affiliation to the college for the year 2012-13, which is abundantly incorrect because in the list of affiliated colleges appearing on the official website of respondent No. 1 on 12.1.2012, the name of the petitioners/college is shown at Sr. No. 155. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the University has been corresponding with the petitioners/college and accepting amounts towards various fees which shows that the petitioners/college was already affiliated otherwise respondent No. 1 would not have passed the order of withdrawal of the affiliation on 4.4.2013 which was challenged by the petitioners by way of CWP No. 6437 of 2012 decided on 30.4.2012 and the said order was set aside. It is also submitted that the University had issued circular on 5.10.2009 wherein it was resolved that all the provisional extension of affiliation so far granted with effect from the session be treated as for the session, which was challenged by way of CWP No. 8806 of 2010 and vide order dated 20.5.2010 the said circular has been stayed. Thereafter, the said writ petition was rendered infructuous because the University made a statement that they are withdrawing the order dated 5.10.2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the affiliation of the petitioners/college has been continuing since 2008-2009 and the University till date has been treating the college as affiliated and issuing degrees accordingly but it has taken a plea in the written statement that the petitioners had to apply for extension for its affiliation for the year 2013-14, which has not been done in time. In this regard, it is submitted that though the petitioners/college was not even required to do so but requisite fee for extension of affiliation has been submitted with a draft of Rs. 2,000/- on 1.5.2013 which has been returned vide communication dated 17.6.2013 and by doing so respondent No. 1 has tried to circumvent the order dated 28.1.2013. It is also submitted that as per Section 28 of the Act, the extension or affiliation is only required by the College who desires to add to a new course of instructions which is not the intention of the petitioners/college. Lastly it is submitted that the respondents have unduly taken shelter of University Grants Commission (Affiliation of Colleges by University) Regulations, 2009 [for short ''the UGC Regulations''] to state that the petitioners/college has to apply for extension of affiliation till a particular date and any one applying thereafter would not be affiliated. It is submitted that the statutory/regulatory body for the B.Ed. colleges like the petitioners/college is the NCTE and not UGC.

In reply, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the impugned order has been passed by the Syndicate because as per Section 30 of the Act, a member of the Syndicate can move a motion for the withdrawal of affiliation of any college in writing, by stating the grounds on which his motion is based, in a meeting of Syndicate, whereupon the Syndicate by following procedure laid down thereunder takes action and the final order of withdrawal of affiliation is passed by the Government i.e. Central Government. But in the present case, the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the order/direction of this Court in decision dated 30.4.2012 passed in CWP No. 6437 of 2012. It is further argued that the regulations framed by the Senate have become redundant because the UGC Regulations have been adopted by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 31.8.2010 and approved by the Senate on 10.10.2010. A decision was circulated by respondent No. 1 to all the colleges vide letters dated 16.9.2011 and 15.11.2011 and as per Regulation 4.9 of the UGC Regulations, the Syndicate of the University is the competent authority to decide as to whether a college is to be granted affiliation or not and as such the impugned order has been rightly passed by the competent authority/Syndicate of the University. He further denied that the impugned order has been passed under the threat of the contempt petition filed by Naib Singh rather in terms of the order dated 30.4.2012 a committee was constituted, who had found the deficiencies and submitted its report dated 16.7.2012 which was sent to the college regarding which no comments have been received. It is also submitted that the inspection committee has found that the petitioners/college is not having any governing body in terms of the University Regulations as required under Regulation 3.1.10 of the UGC Regulations. The college is not having any teacher or principal after 31.3.2012 and neither had paid them salaries as per UGC pay scales nor any Dearness Allowance. College is also not maintaining their Provident Fund Accounts and also not granting them annual increments. The college is paying consolidated salaries to non-teaching staff @ Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- per month and similarly to the teachers @ Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- per month. The College is not having any Librarian and the post of one principal and six lecturers were found vacant. All these information have been duly signed by the Secretary of the Society which according to respondent No. 1 are not fulfilling the conditions laid down in Regulations 3.4.4 and 3.4.5 of the UGC Regulations. There has been no challenge to the inspection report and also to the intimation dated 15.11.2011 under which all the colleges affiliated with the Panjab University have been informed that they are to follow affiliation procedure contained in the UGC Regulations/guidelines mentioned in Regulation 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11, for the purpose of affiliation/extension of affiliation in its letter and spirit. It is also submitted that the earlier order dated 30.4.2012 was passed since recognition of the petitioner was withdrawn by the NCTE and since the recognition is withdrawn, the de-affiliation automatically follows in terms of Section 17(3) of the NCTE Act, because the University cannot keep alive affiliation of any College whose very recognition stands withdrawn by the NCTE. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of inspection conducted by respondent No. 1 in terms of the direction of this Court vide order dated 30.4.2012 and after defining the glaring deficiencies, it is also submitted that as per Regulation 4.3 of the UGC Regulations, the petitioners are bound to submit their application within stipulated period and the last date with late fees was 10.1.2013 and if University accepts any application, it would invite penalty under Regulation 9.1 of the UGC Regulations. It is also argued that it is wrong that fresh application for extension of provisional affiliation is not required in view of the order dated 30.3.2011 passed in CWP No. 8806 of 2010 and the stay granted in that case against the decision dated 2.8.2009 passed by the Syndicate under old regulations extension, which was without an application, is irrelevant because thereafter UGC Regulations come into force and as per Regulation 4.10 of the UGC Regulations, continuation of temporary affiliation is to be made on year to year basis.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The basic issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to non-compliance of Section 30 of the Act. In order to appreciate his submission, it would be relevant to refer to the said provision which is extracted from the writ petition: -

Disaffiliation:

(1) A member of the Syndicate who intends to move that the rights conferred on any college by affiliation be withdrawn, in whole or in part, shall give notice of his motion, and shall state in writing the grounds on which the motion is made.

(2) Before taking the said motion into consideration, the Syndicate shall send a copy of the notice and of the statement mentioned in Sub-Section (1) to the Head of the College concerned, together with an intimation that any representation in writing submitted within a specified period on behalf of the College, will be considered by the Syndicate.

Provided that the period so specified may, if necessary, be extended by the Syndicate.

(3) On receipt of the representation or on expiration of the period referred to in Sub-Section (2), the Syndicate, after considering the notice of motion, statement and representation, and after such inspection by any competent person authorised by the Syndicate in this behalf, and such further inquiry as may appear to them to be necessary, shall make a report to the Senate.

(4) On receipt of the report under Sub-Section (3), the Senate, shall, after such further inquiry (if any) as may appear to them to be necessary, record their opinion on the matter.

(5) The Registrar shall submit the proposal and all proceedings of the Syndicate and Senate relating thereto to the Government who, after such further inquiry (if any) as may appear to them to be necessary shall make such order as the circumstances may in their opinion, require.

(6) Where, by an order made under Sub-Section (5), the rights conferred by affiliation are withdrawn, in whole or in part, the grounds for such withdrawal shall be stated in the order.

The submission of the petitioners is that the Syndicate who had passed the order challenged herein had no jurisdiction because as per Section 30(5) of the Act, the proceedings of the Syndicate and Senate forms part of the proposal which is to be submitted by the Registrar to the Government much less the Central Government who, after such further inquiry, if any, is finds necessary then pass appropriate order. It is thus, submitted that the impugned order having been passed by the Syndicate, is contrary to the provisions of Section 30(5) of the Act.

It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have also filed an application bearing CM No. 10940 of 2013 for the issuance of some directions which was also reserved on 1.8.2013 and is being considered with the main case, which was already reserved.

The stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents is that the Senate was competent to frame Regulations in terms of Section 31 of the Act, which have been framed in Chapter VIII (A) titled "affiliated colleges" wherein conditions of affiliations under which the Syndicate has been empowered in terms of Regulation 11(1) to impose one or more of various penalties laid thereunder including withdrawal of the affiliation in part or in whole as per Regulation 11(5) of the UGC Regulations of Chapter VIII. It is further submitted that these regulations have become redundant because the University Grants Commission has framed regulations for affiliation called UGC Regulations which have been accepted in the meeting of Syndicate on 31.8.2010, resolving that "the UGC Regulation 2009 with regard to conditions of affiliation be accepted and Rules/Regulations of Panjab University be amended accordingly". Regulation 1.2 of the UGC Regulations provided that "it shall apply to all college seeking affiliation and already affiliated to the University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a provincial Act or a State Act". It is also provided in Regulation 4.10 of the UGC Regulations that "continuation of temporary affiliation of the programmes of study and the College itself shall be granted by the University on a year to year basis through inspection process prescribed in these Regulations" and the eligibility criteria for temporary affiliation is provided in Regulation 3 of the UGC Regulations which runs upto 3.1 to 3.1.10. It is also provided in Regulation 4.9 of the UGC Regulations that "Syndicate/Executive Council of the University shall be the ultimate to decide to granting, or not granting affiliation" and since there is no Executive Council in respondent No. 1, therefore, the decision has been taken by the Syndicate. It is also provided in Regulation 9.1 of the UGC Regulations that "in case of any contravention of the relevant provisions of the UGC Act and Regulations, the Commission may take such action as it may deem fit, including that of withholding the grants to the University and/or delisting the said University from the list of Universities maintained by the Commission u/s 12B of the UGC Act". Thus, it is apparent that the UGC Regulations shall apply to respondent No. 1 in terms of Regulation 1.2 of the UGC Regulations and as per Regulation 4.9 of the UGC Regulations, it is the Syndicate who is given the ultimate power to decide to grant, or not to grant, affiliation in terms of which the impugned order has been passed. Moreover, when the order dated 30.4.2012 was passed, at that time, recognition was withdrawn and the agitation of the petitioners was that the recognition and consequent affiliation has been withdrawn without any opportunity of hearing about which a direction was given by this Court that the NCTE and Panjab University who inspected the petitioners/college, grant hearing to the petitioners through the new management and pass an order thereafter and consequently, respondent No. 1 constituted a committee, who conducted spot enquiry and indicated various shortcomings in its report. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, the present writ petition is denuded of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.