Raj Rajeshwari College of Education v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & Ors.

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate Mr.Harish Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.CB Goel, Advocate for the respondent Permod Kohli,J This order will dispose of CWP Nos.3998 and 8588 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions. This is the second round of litigation by the Raj Rajeshwari College of Education who is petitioner in CWP No.3998 of 2010. In the first round of litigation i.e. CWP No.15634 of 2009, the petitioner-Institution had assailed show-cause notice dated 25.6.2009 withholding the provisional affiliation for the session 2009-2010 and also debarring the petitioner- CWP Nos.3998 & 8588 of 2010 2 2 Institution from participation in the admission process to the B.Ed course. When notice of motion was issued in the aforesaid writ petition, following interim order was passed on 9.10.2009:- “In the meantime, the petitioner-institution shall be permitted to participate in the counselling for allocation of the students. Students may also be allocated to the petitioner-Institution. petitioner institution will not make any formal admission without further direction from this Court.” However, It is stated by the petitioner-institution that it participated in the counselling and admission process and merit list of 100 students for admission was formally prepared. Above said writ petition was, however, finally allowed by this Court on 2.2.2010 with the following directions:- “Vide interim order dated 9.10.2009, a direction was issued to allocate 100 students to the petitioner by permitting to participate in the counselling. Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate, has argued that the students have been allocated, though, admissions having not been made, the same being not permitted by this Court with the quashment of the impugned order, the petitioner shall be entitled to make admissions, subject to fulfilling of the following conditions:- (i)If students have been allocated and are available and willing to seek admissions. (ii)If the petitioner is in a position to complete requisite essential lectures before the examination for which the University shall make assessment and issue necessary direction. This petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above manner.” After the above directions, the petitioner-institution claims to have provisionally admitted 100 students with intimation to the University vide its letter dated 5.2.2010 (Annexure P-2). The University, however, vide its CWP Nos.3998 & 8588 of 2010 3 3 reply dated 10.2.2010 asked the petitioner not to make any admission to B.Ed Course for the session 2009-2010 on the ground that admission process had already closed on 30.9.2009 when interim order of court dated

9.10.2009 to hold counselling was received by the University, and the petitioner college is not in a position to complete mandatory requirement of 180 working days. It seems that the petitioner-institution further made a representation insisting for having validly made admission of 100 students and also referred to a circular dated 28.1.2010 (Annexure P-5) issued by the University asking the concerned colleges to ensure completion of 180 working days in the academic session 2009-2010 and it would be the responsibility of the College to make good the loss by arranging extra classes. In the representation, it was also mentioned that the petitioner had started the classes from 5.2.2010 and also extra classes to make up the requisite lectures. The University, however, did not respond to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application before this Court in CWP No.15634 of 2009 for modification of the order dated 2.2.2010. This application having been made after the disposal of the writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with a view to challenge the letter dated

10.2.2010 issued by the University. The present petition has been filed seeking quashment of letter dated 10.2.2010 (Annexure P-3) issued by the University and a further direction to conduct an inspection regarding extra classes and further relief to allow the petitioner-institution to continue with the classes for B.Ed course regularly. The second connected writ petition i.e. CWP No.8588 of 2010 has been filed by four students who claim to have sought admission in the College of petitioner in CWP No.3998 of 2010. Their prayer is for a direction to the University to issue the examination forms for the B.Ed final CWP Nos.3998 & 8588 of 2010 4 4 examination for the Session 2009-2010 and to permit them to appear in the examination of B.Ed for the Session 2009-2010. Both these writ petitions have been heard together, in view of the identical facts and the relief claimed. The University in its reply has disputed the claim of the petitioner- institution regarding the allocation of students pursuant to the interim order dated 9.10.2009 passed in CWP No. 15634 of 2009. It is stated that counselling for admission to B.Ed course had been completed on 30.9.2009 and thus there was no occasion for the University to have permitted the petitioner in the counselling and allocation of students pursuant to the order dated 9.10.2009. Mr.Goel, learned counsel for the University has argued that neither any counselling was held by the University for admission to B.Ed course after 30.9.2009 nor any student was allocated to the petitioner- institution. It is also the case of the University that vide the judgment dated 2.2.2010 passed in CWP No. 15634 of 2009 while setting aside the impugned notice, this Court had imposed two conditions for making admissions to the petitioner-College and the petitioner does not fulfil any of the conditions. The first condition being allocation of students and availability of the students as also their willingness to seek admissions; and the second condition is the opinion of the university as to whether the petitioner could complete the requisite essential lecturers before the examination. It is stated on behalf of the University that the University has already issued notification notifying the academic calendar and the annual examination of the B.Ed course is to commence from 1.5.2010 for practical and theory examination on 10.6.2010 and thus, it is impossible to complete 180 days course during the available number of 80 days even from the date of judgment. CWP Nos.3998 & 8588 of 2010 5 5 The students who are petitioners no.1 to 4 in CWP No.8588 of 2010 have stated that they sought admission in the College which is petitioner in CWP No.3998 of 2010, in response to the advertisement published in Amar Ujala and Hari Bhumi newspapers notifying the counselling in the Raj Rajeshwari College of Education, on 10.10.2009 to 12.10.2009. They have further stated that they deposited fee with the College and classes have commenced on 5.2.2010. But their examination forms have not been entertained by the University. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Earlier writ petition of the petitioner-College i.e. CWP No. 15634 of 2009 has been allowed by this Court quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 25.6.2009. It is relevant to mention that in the said show- cause notice, provisional affiliation of the petitioner-College was withheld and the petitioner-College was debarred from participating in the admission process. When this Court passed order dated 9.10.2009 for allocation of 100 students, direction was to the respondent-University to allocate the students on the basis of counselling. It is positive case of the university that no counselling was held after 30.9.2009. It is also not the case of the petitioner-institution that 100 students were allocated by the university in the counselling after 9.10.2009. The petitioner-institution claims to have held counselling on 11.10.2009 by itself under the interim direction of this Court dated 9.10.2009. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was not entitled to hold counselling itself under the order dated 9.10.2009. In the judgment dated 2.2.2010 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, while setting aside the show-cause notice, this Court had imposed two conditions for admission of 100 students. The first condition as noticed above was allocation of the students, their availability and willingness. The word “allocation” CWP Nos.3998 & 8588 of 2010 6 6 contemplated in the order meant “allocation by the University”. The University categorically denied having made any allocation of students and rightly so because no counselling was held by University after 30.9.2009. The first condition of allocation of students is itself not fulfilled. Even regarding the other two conditions, no material has been placed on record to establish that 100 students are available with the petitioner-institution who are they and whether they are willing or not? The assertion of the petitioner-College that 100 students are available with it are not supported by any material on record with the names and particulars of the students, their marks to indicate eligibility. Only four students have come forward in CWP No.8588 of 2010 claiming to be admitted in the petitioner-College. Possibility of this petition having been sponsored by the College cannot be ruled out. There is another aspect of the matter. On the one hand, it is pleaded by the petitioner-College that they admitted the students pursuant to the interim order dated 9.10.2009 and on the other hand it is stated that the College admitted the students on the basis of directions in another CWP No.11272 of 2009 decided on 17.9.2009. This writ petition was filed by Association of Educational Colleges of Haryana to fill up unfilled vacancies of B.Ed course in the member Colleges of the Association. Detailed directions were issued permitting the Association to advertise available vacancies and to make admissions in accordance with the various directions issued therein. One of the directions was that the counselling shall be conducted in the presence of the representative of the University and intimation shall be given immediately after the counselling which was to be held from 8.10.2009 to 12.10.2009. Neither in the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP NO.15634 of 2009 filed by the petitioner-College nor in the present CWP Nos.3998 & 8588 of 2010 7 7 writ petition, it is pleaded that it had advertised vacancies pursuant to the directions dated 17.9.2009 contained in the order passed in CWP No.11272 of 2009. This plea was raised during the course of hearing of this petition. The plea of the petitioner-College is self-contradictory. In one breath, it is argued that students were allocated to it on the basis of the interim order dated 9.10.2009 passed in CWP No. 15634 of 2009 and in the second breath, it is sought to be projected that admissions were made pursuant to the directions dated 17.9.2009 passed in CWP No.11272 of

2009. Even the four students who are petitioners in CWP No.8588 of 2010 claim their admission on the basis of the advertisement notice issued by the College for holding counselling on 11.10.2010 and 12.10.2010. It is pertinent to note that at no stage, the College was permitted to issue any public notice. In any case, the petitioner- College could not have issued public notice for holding counselling on 11.10.2009 as it had no affiliation, its affiliation having been withheld by the University by virtue of the notice dated 25.6.2009 which came to be quashed only on 2.2.2010. Without going into the other question whether the petitioner-College can complete 180 days of the lectures or not, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:- (i)No student was allocated to the petitioner-College by the respondent- University pursuant to the interim order dated 9.10.2009 passed in CWP No.15634 of 2009; (ii)There is no material on record regarding the availability of 100 students or their willingness, except the four students who are writ petitioners in CWP No.8588 of 2010; (iii)Even these four students were not allocated seats by the University, who claim to have got admission on the basis of a public notice issued by CWP Nos.3998 & 8588 of 2010 8 8 the petitioner-College for which the petitioner-College was never permitted at any stage. In view of the above circumstances, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioner-College will be entitled to participate in the counselling process and admit the students for the next academic session 2010-2011. Copy of this order be placed on record of each concerned file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 25 .5. 2010 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not?NO