ATMAN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are private/non-Government B. Ed. Colleges affiliated with the University of Jammu, respondent No. 1 (for short the University). They have been allowed different intake of students. Faced with the evil of nonattendance of students in the B. Ed. Colleges, the University by virtue of a decision taken in the 6th meeting of its College Development Council (CDC), respondent No. 4, held on 03.07.2014 has devised a formula to reduce the intake seats of these colleges for the session 2014-2015 proportionate to the level of non-attendance noticed in the course of two inspections held during the previous session. Pursuant to the said decision and formula, the intake of students in the petitioner-colleges among some other B.Ed. colleges for the session 2014-15 has been considerably reduced. According to the petitioners, the University has issued a list of as many as 76 colleges for participating in centralized counseling for admission showing their sanctioned and reduced intake for the session 2014-15. The sanctioned intake and the reduced intake of the 16 colleges, who are the petitioners, is culled out and tabulated in para 8 of the petition as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1_LAWS(J&K)12_2014_5.html</FRM>

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the reduction in their intake seats for the session 2014-15, petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir seeking appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision/formula devised for reducing the intake seats and the list issued by the University so far as it reduces intake seats of the petitioner-colleges for the session 2014-15. Besides, the petitioners seek writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commending the respondents to allocate them the students for the session 2014-15 as per their sanctioned intake.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and pursed the record on the file and that produced by Mr. W. S. Nargal, learned counsel for the respondents.