S D COLLEGE EDUCATIONAL SOCY Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner S.D. College Educational Society, Barnala filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, Punjabi University, Patiala and Dean, College Development Council Punjabi University, Patiala from interfering in the matter of admission to the Diploma Course in Pharmacy Class being run by the plaintiff Society in its College at Barnala and from disaffiliating the said Class or the College or from withholding the approval to the students admitted to the said Class or from taking any other action against the said College for not submitting to their proposal regarding admission to the said Class. On an application filed under O.39, Rr.1 and 2, read with S.151, C.P.C. Sub Judge, Barnala passed an interim injunction order on September 7, 1987, as above till decision of the suit. The defendants took up the matter in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Barnala who accepted the same and dismissed the application. The plaintiff Society has come up in revision petition.

(2.) The plaintiff Society is an association of Sanatanists which is a religious and linguistic minority in Punjab. The said Society is registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Punjab. The said Society is running S.D. College, Barnala having degree classes in different subjects. In the year 1985, Diploma in Pharmacy Class was started which was affiliated with Punjabi University, Patiala. The Society is having all the facilities for imparting instructions in Pharmacy up to Diploma standard as prescribed by the University, and the Pharmacy Council of India. The plaintiff Society is not given aid of any kind for running the Diploma in Pharmacy Class by the Government or the University Grants Commission or any other governmental or statutory agency. The said Class is being run by the Society from its own sources. The University on June 22, 1987 wrote a letter to the Principal of the College intimating decision taken in the meeting of the Academic Council that for admission in Diploma Course it Pharmacy in the said College and to other Colleges, namely Akal Degree College, Mastuana and Shivalik College, Naya Nangal, an admission test would be held by the University on P.M.T. pattern for the Session 1987-88. To this a representation was sent by the College that the Punjabi University or any other body had no legal jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of admission or to lay down any policy or procedure for such admission as the College was being run by religious and linguistic minority which was not at all aided by the Government in any form. In the said representation, reference was made to the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4200 of 1986 (Ashu Gupta v. State of Punjab) reported as (1987) 91 Pun LR 387 . A reply was sent to this representation by the Dean of College Development Council of the Punjabi University that the University Academic Council had the power to prescribe the different courses and fix proper standard for admission and examination regarding affiliated Colleges. Thus, such like instructions and guidelines to regulate the admission in the Colleges under the University Regulations regarding affiliated Colleges could be issued. The College was asked to comply with the instructions of the University for prescribing admission test for Diploma Course for Pharmacy in the College. If no reply was received within the stipulated period, the University on the basis of the available record would be compelled to take further action regarding disaffiliation of Diploma Course in Pharmacy introduced in the said College. On the aforesaid lines were the pleadings of the parties taken in the suit as well as in the written statement reiterating their stand. The lower appellate Court decided the matter against the petitioner Society mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the University had the power to prescribe in the Regulations for excellence of the education in the College to hold pre-admission test for admitting students in the College. Secondly, it was held that if it was not done, it would amount to discrimination under Art.14 of the Constitution among students who would otherwise be entitled to admission on the basis of merit. After hearing counsel for both the parties, I find that the approach of the lower appellate Court to the questions posed was not correct. Both the points referred to above are covered by judicial precedents.

(3.) Arts.29 and 30 of the Constitution read as under :-