ISLAMIA KARIMIA SOCY INDORE Vs. DEVI AHILYA VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Islamia Karimia Society, Indore, claims to be a linguistic and religious minority within the meaning of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. It is a body registered under the Non Trading Corporation Act and is established and administers the Islamia Karimia Degree College in Indore. An application was made on behalf of the college for its affiliation with the Vikram University, Ujjain, which, on the formation of University of Indore, was sent by the Registrar, Vikram University, Ujjain, to the Vice-Chancellor, Indore University, as is apparent from a copy of the letter dt. 16th June 1964 attached as Annexure-R-1 to the Registrar's affidavit filed in the present petition. Copy of letter dt. 30th June 1964 from the Registrar of the University of Indore to the Principal of the College attached as Annexure-R-2 indicates that provisional affiliation was granted to the college with effect from 1st July 1964 in the subjects mentioned in the application for affiliation subject to the conditions mentioned in the letter dt. 30th June 1964. Posts of lecturers in some subjects fell vacant and a letter dt. 3rd October 1983 was sent by the college to the Vice-Chancellor, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, which was the new nomenclature given to the University of Indore with the prayer that in order to enable to fill the vacant posts of lecturers advertisement had already been issued and to facilitate the selection of lecturers, experts in the subjects concerned may be appointed expeditiously. A copy of this letter has been attached as Annexure-A-3 to the writ petition. The request in the aforesaid letter was reiterated by a subsequent letter dt. 19th October 1983. It appears that in pursuance to these letters the Vice-Chancellor nominated not only experts to be members of the Selection Committee but also a Chairman of the said committee and informed the college about the nomination by a letter dt. 24th Oct. 1983. On the receipt of the said letter the college wrote a letter dt. 16th Nov. 1983 to the Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, a copy whereof has been attached as Annexure-A-5 to the writ petition taking objection to the nomination of Chairman of the Committee on the ground that the college being, a minority institution, the nomination even of the Chairman of the committee was in contravention of Art.30(1) of the Constitution. It was requested in the said letter that permission may be granted to proceed with selection of lecturers with the Governing Body as the Chairman according to the College Code. A reminder was also subsequently issued to the same effect by the principal of the college to the Secretary, M.P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, vide letter dt. 4th, Oct. 1984 a copy whereof has been attached as Annexure-A-7 to the writ petition. It further appears that a letter dt. 9th Aug. 1985, a copy whereof has been attached as Annexure-A-8 to the writ petition, was sent by the Secretary, M.P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, to the principal of the college emphasising the necessity of removing the irregularity in the matter of appointment of the principal of the college also.

(2.) Thereafter a notice dt. 23rd November 1983 was sent by the college through a counsel to the Registrar, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-B to the writ petition. Its perusal indicates that the college took exception to the appointment of the Selection Committee for appointment of lecturers as contemplated by paragraph 17(1) of Statute No. 28 of the Statutes of the Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore. A demand was made in this notice requiring the University to amend the Statute No. 28 so as to safeguard the rights of the college which was a minority institution within the meaning of Art.30(1) of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner is that since the demand made in the aforesaid notice was not met by the University, necessity of filing the present writ-petition arose. The writ petition was subsequently amended inter alia incorporating certain provisions of Statute No. 28 in paragraph 3 thereof. The prayer contained in the writ petition is that the provisions of Statute No. 28 referred to in paragraph 3 of the writ petition to the extent that they are in conflict with the rights of a minority institution safeguarded by Art.30(1) of the Constitution, may be held to be void and of no effect. In the alternative, it has been prayed that it may be declared that the impugned provisions do not apply to the college run by the petitioner society, the same being a minority educational institution. From a perusal of the writ petition it is apparent that even though after amendment of the writ petition various provisions of Statute No. 23 have been mentioned in paragraph 3 thereof and a prayer as aforesaid has been made in regard to those provisions, the real grievance of the petitioner seems to be the action of the University in nominating not only experts as members of the Selection Committee but also its Chairman. Nothing has been brought to our notice in the writ petition by learned counsel for the petitioner which may indicate that the respondent University has interfered with the management of the college by the petitioner in any manner other than appointing a Chairman also of the Selection Committee and requiring it to remove certain irregularities in the matter of appointment of the Principal. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the decision of this writ petition should be confined to the correctness or otherwise of the stand taken by the respondent University in nominating even the Chairman of the Selection Committee.

(3.) In Chandra Sekhar v. State of Orissa, AIR 1972 SC 486 it was held in paragraph 9 of the report that the High Court in a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution should not embark upon an academic question. In the absence of any allegation or material indicating that the University has interfered with the management of the college by the petitioner in any other sphere except in the matter of constitution of the Selection Committee to appoint lecturers by nominating even the Chairman of the committee, obviously the consideration of the question as to whether any of the other provisions of Statute No. 28 of the Statutes of the University are in violation of Art.30(1) of the Constitution would be only academic.