DAR US SALAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of the rarest of rare cases to oppose tooth and nail by the respondents for amendment of the relief in the writ petition. The petitioner is indisputably a minority institution. It had applied for and obtained in G.O.Ms. No. 255 dated September 7, 1984, permission to establish Deccan College of Engineering and Technology. It also sought affiliation to the respondent-University. Provisional permission was accorded on November 8, 1984 to admit students of four sections pursuant to which students have been admitted from year to year. It is not in dispute that two batches of students have passed final year and were conferred degrees in Engineering and the other three batches are now in the fourth, third and second year respectively. For the academic year 1988-89, the petitioner has admitted students in three sections and by letter dated July 18, 1988 they had reported to the University and permission was granted to continue the students. A report by the Inspection Committee has been submitted pursuant to which the petitioner had complied with the deficiencies pointed out therein and has sought for permanent affiliation. In the meanwhile, the University has sent a letter on February 6, 1989, requesting the Principal of the College to send on or before February 20, 1989 and the latest being before March 13, 1989 with late fee, the application forms for examinations, of all the students i.e., first year to fourth year. Time was extended up to March 25, 1989. The Principal of the College has sent the applications on February 27, 1989. Thereafter, on March 21, 1989, the applications of the first year students have been returned on the ground that the College has not been affiliated, but accepted the applications of the students of the second to fourth years. At that stage the petitioners filed the writ petition to issue Mandamus or any other direction declaring the action of the University in refusing to accept the examination-fee and forms of first year as illegal with a direction to allow the students to appear for the written examinations on April 3, 1989 and practical on April l7, 1989. After hearing both sides, my learned brother, M.N.Rao, J. by order in W.P.M.P. No.5695/89 dated March 27, 1989 granted interim direction to the University to allow the 180 students of First Year B.E. Course for the year 1988-89 to sit for the examinations on those days, by receiving back the application form and examination fee, etc. On appeal in W. A. No.545/89 the Division Bench by order dated April 3,1989, modified it and has given directions as follows:

(2.) The contention of Sri Pratap Reddy is that after the order passed by the Division Bench there is a change in the circumstances; the University has permanently rejected the affiliation; the petitioner has no option but to amend the relief sought for in the writ petition so as to continue the first year students who were already admitted and undergone the studies for the first year; no new facts have been stated except the facts already mentioned in the additional affidavit for which additional counter has already been filed; this Court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, can take note of the subsequent events while granting the relief and there is no necessity for filing any express application for amendment of the relief. In support thereof, he placed reliance on D.Satyanarayana v. N.T.Ramarao, AIR 1988 Andh Pra 144 (FB). Sri P.L.N.Sarnia, learned counsel appearing for the Parents' Association, in support of the petitioner's claim, has also argued that subsequent events can be taken note of and the relief can be moulded based thereon and it is not even necessary to file any application for amendment. This was resisted by Sri Gururaja Rao. It is contended that the original relief is only for a direction to permit the students of the first year to sit for the examinations on the specified dates after receiving their applications and examination fee; that relief has already been given by the University itself by conducting examinations. Pursuant to the direction given by the Division Bench, the University has considered and rejected permanent affiliation to the petitioner. Therefore, if any amendment is made, it will be introducing a new cause of action which is not initially available. Except by filing a separate writ petition, the relief cannot be granted which alters the character of the relief in the writ petition and therefore the relief in this regard is misconceived.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether the amendment of the relief sought for, could be permitted. This Court framed Rules in exercise of the power vested under Art. 225 of the Constitution, as a court of record, regulating the proceedings under Art. 226. Rule 24 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, provides that