SATHWARA RAMESHKUMAR DALSUKHBHAI Vs. GUJARAT VIDYAPITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four appellants before us were the petitioners in the original petition and the petition having been dismissed they have come up in appeal. They are all students in the second year of the M.S.W. course conducted by the Gujarat Vidyapith. There are two semesters in the second year. For the second year the students are expected to study six subjects. Five of them are compulsory. In the sixth there are three sub-groups from which it is open to the students to choose any one and these three sub-groups are:

(2.) Every institution has its own discipline. More than that it has its own orientation in regard to studies. Gujarat Vidyapith is a well established institution and the course of studies there is not mere prototype of studies in other institutions. That must have been devised after due deliberation and any one joining this institution is bound by the discipline of that institution. If one feels that he may not like to sit on the floor while attending some of the classes which perhaps might be insisted upon by an institution one would be advised not to join the institution. We cannot say after joining the institution that he does not consider sitting on the floor to attend classes as proper and that he should be provided with a chair and a table. If spinning classes are a part of the regular routine in the institution he joins and he resents to such requirement he should keep away from the institution. He joins with the implied consent to subject himself to the rules and regulations of the institution and more than that its discipline which may really be reflection of its individual character.

(3.) The more important question concerns the option exercised by the petitioners. It is true that they have opted for one of the three subjects but for reasons beyond the control of the management that course can no longer be continued. When the Instructor wants to leave he cannot be retained by force by the Gujarat Vidyapith in order to see that the students who have commenced their courses complete their courses. It is not open to the students to dictate to the institution as to who should be appointed as a teacher. May be the good sense of the institution may persuade it to listen to the students if they bona fide suggest the name of a teacher and the management feels that there is no objection to that name. But in this case it is said that the name of the teacher suggested was not acceptable to the Vidyapith. Whether he will fit in the set up of the Vidyapith is for the management to consider. There are restrictions on the staff of the Gujarat Vidyapith such as wearing of the Khadi and heeding to certain restrictions. If the Vidyapith felt that the person suggested may not fit into the framework of the institution he cannot be appointed. In these circumstances the petitioners should not have stuck to the option exercised by them when they told that Mr. Sanon had left.