DEVIDUTTA TEWARI SHIKSHA SANSTHAN S.MAHAVIDYALAYA Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR SAMPURNANAND SANSKRIT VISWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Devidutta Tewari Shiksha Sansthan Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Khoribari, Laxmipur, Deoria (for short 'Institution') is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya, Varanasi and provision of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the first Statutes, 1978 of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya, Varanasi(for short 'statutes') are applicable to it. The institution was granted permanent affiliation vide certificate of affiliation / recognition dated 25.7.2005. It is alleged that in the year 2013, while Shastri Exams were being held in the Institution, the flying squad found students indulging in mass copying. A notice dated 12.7.2013 was given by Dy. Registrar of the University, calling upon the Principal of the Institution to appear before the Unfair Means Committee for putting forth its explanation. In the notice, it is mentioned that in case no one turns up, it will be assumed that the institution has nothing to say regarding charge of mass copying and exparte action will be taken. Pursuant thereto, the Principal of the Institution submitted an explanation in writing dated 17.7.2013 before the Unfair Means Committee, in which allegations of mass copying were categorically denied. It was stated that the Flying Squad found two students each cheating in class room no.1, 4 and 6 that is, in all 6 students. These sporadic instances are not sufficient to charge the institution with mass copying. Thereafter, the petitioner Institution was served with the impugned communication dated 29.8.2013 mentioning that on basis of the report submitted by the Flying Squad, the explanation given by the petitioner Institution dated 17.7.2013, and the recommendations made by the Unfair Means Committee, the Examination Committee in its meeting dt.01-08-2013 had decided to prohibit the Institution from taking new admissions during the year 2014 on charges of gross mismanagement in holding exams, inadequate arrangement for custody of examination record, and discovery of unsealed answer scripts of the exams already held, etc. The Institution was warned that in case no improvement is observed, then as per the decision of the Executive Committee in its meeting dt. 20-01-2013, proceedings for cancellation of affiliation shall be undertaken. Challenging the said communication, the present writ petition has been filed by its management and the principal. A further relief has been sought for a direction to the University to treat 60 students already admitted prior to passing of the impugned order, to be bona fide students and allow them to appear in the examination 2014.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as, the Examination Committee is not competent to impose ban on affiliated college to take new admissions. It is contended that the aforesaid power is vested with the Executive Council as per Statute 12.32 of Part 6 of Chapter XII (for short ''statute 12-32'). In the present case, there was no approval of the Executive Council. It has further been brought to the knowledge of this Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Executive Council had allegedly approved the decision of the Unfair Means Committee dated 1.8.2013 in its meeting held on 25.10.2013. It is contended that subsequent approval will not cure the defect. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under the statute in question, the Executive Council can pass such order only if it is of the opinion that the institution had failed to observe the conditions prescribed for starting such classes. But in the present case, the Executive Council had not recorded any such finding and which, even otherwise, vitiates the decision of the Executive Council taken in its meeting dt. 25-10-2013. It cannot validate the impugned order. It is further submitted that the decision to debar the Institution from taking new admission can be applied only prospectively and in the present case, petitioner Institution had admitted 60 students between 1st July to 14th July 2013 and ban imposed cannot be made applicable to such students. It is stated that by representation dated 10.9.2013, the aforesaid fact was duly brought to the knowledge of respondent no. 3, alongwith which, the petitioner Institution also submitted the extract of attendance register to prove that such students are regularly attending their classes. However, the University is not prepared to hold their examinations on the basis of impugned order, which is manifestly illegal.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Sri V. B. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the University contended that the impugned decision of the Examination Committee dated 29.8.2013 has the due approval of the Executive Council, as is evident from the minutes of the meeting held on 25.10.1013 (CA-5). He further submitted that the petitioner Institution was verbally informed on 17.7.2013 not to take new admissions and as such, the petitioner Institution cannot take benefit of any action taken in this regard. It was thus contended that 60 students allegedly admitted during the academic session 2013-14 are not entitled to appear in the examination.