Rae Bareli Degree College, Education Trust, Raebareli Thru. Managing Secy. Atul Bhargava and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Higher Education, Lucknow and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5664

Court No. - 17

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8053 of 2023

Petitioner :- Rae Bareli Degree College, Education Trust, Raebareli Thru. Managing Secy. Atul Bhargava And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Higher Education, Lucknow And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashank Bhasin

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Affidavit of opposite party no.5 filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 5 while notices on behalf of opposite parties 2 to 4 have been accepted by Mr. Shashank Bhasin, Advocate. In view of order being passed notices to opposite party no.6 stand dispensed with.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 21.07.2023, Resolution of the Executive Council of University of Lucknow dated 23.03.2021, orders dated 18.07.2022, 02.09.2022 and 20.10.2022 whereby single hand operation has been imposed in petitioner-institution.

¶9

Earlier vide order dated 09.10.2023, it has been indicated that petitioner was not pressing reliefs pertaining to prayers 2 to 5 and therefore the petition was dismissed as not pressed with regard to said prayers with liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1973).

¶10

It has been submitted that earlier tenure of Committee of Management of petitioner-institution was extended uptill 28.03.2025. The said election was thereafter approved by the

¶11

General Body in its meeting held on 29.03.2022. It is further submitted that approval of petitioner's Committee of Management was thereafter accorded by Deputy Registrar on 22.07.2022.

¶12

It is submitted that since in terms of Section 2(13) of the Act of 1973, recognition is also required to be granted by the University to which the College is affiliated, information regarding such election and its approval by the General Body was also sent to the Registrar, University of Lucknow vide letter dated 29.03.2022 itself.

¶13

However, it is submitted that vide impugned order dated 21.07.2023, the Regional Higher Education Officer has imposed single operation upon the College in view of fact that petitioner-institution had not submitted recognition accorded by the Lucknow University, which is the University to which petitioner-institution is affiliated.

¶14

Learned counsel has also drawn attention to another letter issued on the same date pertaining to another College where only time has been granted for furnishing such recognition by the University concerned without imposition of single hand operation. It is therefore submitted that petitioner-institution has been discriminated against.

¶15

It is further submitted that once petitioner's Committee of Management has already been duly approved by the Deputy Registrar, there was no occasion for the petitioner-institution to have furnished any other approval by the University concerned since there is no such provision either in the Act of 1973 or in the First Statute of the University.

¶16

Learned counsel has also drawn attention to Section 60D of

¶17

the Act of 1973 to submit that even for purposes of imposition of single hand operation, it is imperative for the authority concerned to have afforded opportunity of hearing to petitionerinstitution, which having not been followed, vitiates the order itself. Learned counsel has submitted that subsequently by means of order dated 14.12.2023, the Regional Higher Education Officer has passed a fresh order that the single hand operation directed earlier would be subject to final outcome of this petition.

¶18

Learned State Counsel on the basis of instructions has however submitted that in terms of Resolution dated 23.03.2021 passed by the Executive Council of University of Lucknow, it has now been provided that any election to Committee of Management has to be duly recognized or approved in terms of Section 2(13) of the Act of 1973. It is therefore submitted that time had been granted to petitioner-institution to furnish such an approval or recognition, which having not been done, the order impugned has been rightly passed under Section 60D of the Act of 1973.

¶19

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the aforesaid facts as indicated by petitioner's counsel are undisputed. The only aspect to note is whether petitioner would be bound by the Resolution dated 23.03.2021 or mere approval of the election to Committee of Management by the Deputy Registrar is enough. The aforesaid dispute is already pending adjudication before competent authority in terms of Section 68 of the Act of 1973 as per liberty granted by this Court to petitioner and therefore there is no occasion for this court to delve into this aspect.

¶20

However, a perusal of Section 60D(1) of the Act of 1973,

¶21

particularly the second Proviso clearly indicates that it shall be incumbent upon competent authority to first give opportunity of showing cause to the Management prior to passing any order of single hand operation.

¶22

From a perusal of impugned order dated 21.07.2023, it does appear that no such show cause notice or opportunity of hearing has ever been provided to petitioner-institution. The aspect of arbitrariness in single hand operation also appears to be genuine since in other matters, only opportunity of furnishing such approval by the University concerned has been granted without direction for single hand operation.

¶23

Keeping in view of aforesaid factors, particularly the aspect of opportunity of showing cause, the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 is therefore held to have been passed in violation of Section 60D(1) of the Act of 1973 and is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to competent authority to pass fresh order, if required, but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner-institution and considering its reply.

¶24

16 Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.1.2024 kvg/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rae Bareli Degree College, Education Trust, Raebareli Thru. Managing Secy. Atul Bhargava and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Higher Education, Lucknow and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rae Bareli Degree College, Education Trust, Raebareli Thru. Managing Secy. Atul Bhargava and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Higher Education, Lucknow and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Mathur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Arun Memorial Higher Secondary School, Bahraich Thru. Manager, Laxmi Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha, Lucknow and Others

Natthu Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. (Ex- Officio ) Chairperson (U.P.S.a.S) Lko. and 4 Others

Km. Jaya Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Basic Education and 2 Others

Premlata Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Arya Samaj, Lucknow Thru. Secy. Abhishek Tiwari and Another Vs Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others