PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. JAIN VISHVA BHARATI INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the charge-sheet Annexure-8 dt. 24. 3. 2004, so also order of expulsion, passed against the two petitioners on 31. 3. 2004 being Annexure-9 & 10, and also seek a direction to allow both the petitioners to appear in the Final Examination of MSW Course commencing from 19. 4. 2004, or any other date as notified by the respondents, for the Academic Session 2003-2004. The directions are sought against the two respondents, being no. 1 Jain Vishva Bharati Institute (Deemed University) Ladnun, District Nagour through its Vice Chancellor, and no. 2 being the Registrar, Jain Vishva Bharati Institute (Deemed University ).

(2.) THE factual allegations are, that the Institute was founded in the year 1970, with the inspiration of late Acharya Shri Tulsi, as a centre of education, literature, culture, social service, meditation and spirituality, with a primary objective of the institute, to provide instruction, training, research, experimentation, in the fields of oriental learning, Shraman culture and other related subjects. THE Institute is imparting education in the field of Jainology, Science of Living and Programmes in Social Work namely; Bachelor of Social Work (BSW), and Master in Social Work (MSW) etc. It is alleged, that in the year 1991, by issuance of notification under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, hereafter to be referred to as "the Act. ' the Institute was notified as deemed University. It is getting aid from the University Grants Commission (UGC), and the teachers employed are governed, in the service conditions, and wage structure, as prescribed by the UGC, the courses and curriculum for the studies are also prescribed by the UGC. Thus the Institute is working as per guidelines of the UGC. THE degrees of Graduation, as well as Post Graduation awarded by the Institute are also recognised degrees. Thus, it is alleged, the the Institute is an `instrumentality of the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and is amenable to writ jurisdiction.

(3.) ARGUING the writ, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1), and contended, that since the respondent is receiving grant-in-aid from the U. G. C. it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It was also contended, on the basis of this authority, that whenever there is arbitrary action, Article 14 immediately springs into actin, and strikes down such an action, and therefore, in the present case this Court should interfere in the writ jurisdiction.