S N INFO MEDIA Vs. MAKHANLAL CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER no.1 is an educational institution. It is being run by petitioner no.2 Navigator Society. Petitioner no.1 was granted association in the year 2004 by respondent no.1 Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication (in short, "the University"). The association granted to petitioner no.1 was for offering Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) course and some other courses.

(2.) THE University has framed Association of Study Institutes Regulation No.18 2008 (in short, "the Regulation"). Clause 13.3. of the Regulation provides that once an educational institute is linked with the University as an Associate Study Institute, it will be the responsibility of the institute to always maintain high moral and ethical standards, expected of a good academic institution associated with the University. This clause further provides that the institute must take care that none of its actions bring a bad-name to the University or else the Vice Chancellor or an officer authorized by him will be empowered to either cancel the association or put it in "no admission category". Another Clause 5.4 of the regulation states that it shall be the responsibility of institute to check the eligibility of students before granting them admission for the course and if at any point of time it was found that the students do not possess the eligibility for that course, the admission will be cancelled forthwith and the consequence of which shall lie entirely with the institute.

(3.) PETITIONER no.1 in its reply could not deny that the students namely Varsha Paradkar, Munish Kumar, Sanjay Yogi, Mukesh Kumar Mankar and Rupesh Sahu did not belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. It also did not deny that none of these students had secured 50% and above marks in 10+2 course. Petitioner no.1, however, submitted that the students themselves had misrepresented about their castes at the time of admission. The University found the explanation given by petitioner no.1 unacceptable and cancelled its association with immediate effect vide order dated 22.2.2011, Annexure P1. The University thereafter by another communication dated 26.2.2011, Annexure P20, again informed petitioner no.1 that there has been no change in the decision regarding cancellation of association.