SANDIP HARSHADRAY MUNJYASARA Vs. GUJARAT FORENSIC SCIENCES UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri P.A. Jadeja, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1, Shri Rohan Lavkumar, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Shri Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.3.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner party-in-person that the respondent No.1 GSFU is a professional educational institution as defined under Section 2(l) of the Gujarat Professional Technical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2007") and are imparting professional courses as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2007 viz. (1) Master of Technology (Cyber Security and Incident Response); (2) Master of Technology (Civil Engineering) (Forensic Science) and therefore, they are governed by the provisions of the Act, 2007. It is submitted that infact Regulatory Committee constituted under the provisions of the Act, 2007 vide communication dated 20.02017 informed the Registrar of the respondent No.1 GSFU to approach the Committee for determination of the fee structure for M. Tech, M.B.A. Courses run by them. The ACPC also addressed a letter to the Registrar of the respondent No.1 GSFU to provide the Notification / approval, if any, granted by the Government of Gujarat for carrying out admission process. It is submitted that therefore even as per the ACPC, the Act, 2007 shall be applicable. It is submitted by the petitioner party-in-person that the earlier resolution dated 04.10.2017 issued by the Home Department of the State Government, which has been published vide Notification in the Government Gazette in the month of April 2018 only, exempting the courses in question is absolutely illegal without authority under the law and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 2007. It is submitted that the resolution dated 04.10.2017 and the consequential Notification can be said to be de hors of the provisions of the Act, 2007, more particularly Section 13A.

(3.) Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government has submitted that though initially the State Government relied upon the G.R. dated 04.10.2017 which was published vide Notification on 11.04.2018 and the subsequent G.R. dated 11.05.2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department and it was the case on behalf of the State Government that in view of the aforesaid resolutions by which the respondent No.1 GFSU are exempted from the purview of the Act, 2007, however, considering the provisions of the Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2014, Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General is not in a position to justify the aforesaid resolutions and has candidly admitted that the aforesaid resolutions exempting the respondent No.1 in courses run and conducted by the respondent No. - GFSU from the purview of the Act, 2007, can be said to be de hors all the provisions of the Act, 2007 and the Rules, 2014 and that while issuing the aforesaid resolutions, the State has wrongly relied upon and/or considered Rules 10 and 12 of the Master of Business Administration Courses (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2013 and Rules 11, 13 and 14 of the Master of Engineering and Technology and Master of Pharmacy Courses (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 201