Disposed

The Jalgaon Zilla Medicines Dealers Societys College of Pharmacy, Mamurabad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC24 Jun 2014WP/3989/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the University to consider the petitioner-college's application for admission permission, relaxing the requirement for an approved Principal and fixing a deadline for the University to decide based on AICTE norms and a 50% teaching staff ratio.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-University directed to decide on admission permission within seven days, accepting in-charge Principal as sufficient compliance.

The Jalgaon Zilla Medicines Dealers Societys College… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

{1}

¶2

wp398914.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3989 of 2014

¶5

The Jalgaon Zilla Medicines Dealers Society's College of Pharmacy, Mamurabad, Tq. & District Jalgaon. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra,

¶8

through the Secretary for Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

2 The North Maharashtra University, Umavi Nagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon, through its Registrar.

¶10

3 All India Council of Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpeth, New Delhi 110 001, through its Secretary.

¶11

Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate with Mr.A.V.Hon, advocate for petitioners. Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.B.Girase, advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.S.V.Adwant, advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶12

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶13

V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE :24^th June, 2014

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

1 The petitioner-College has been put under “No Admission” category by Respondent No.2-University, which order is an impediment for the petitioner-College to admit students for Ist year B. Pharmacy Course during the academic year 2014-2015.

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp398914.odt

¶18

2 The main objection appears to be that the petitioner-College has not appointed adequate number of teaching staff. It is not a matter of dispute that the Academic Council of Respondent-University has adopted a Resolution of relaxing the criteria in respect of appointment of staff and has prescribed that appointment of 50% of teaching staff would be appropriate for consideration of grant of permission to the Institution to admit students.

¶19

3 The petitioner contends that the Institution has complied with the norms of making appointment of 50% teaching staff and as such, in accordance with the policy prescribed by Respondent-University, the Institution is entitled to admit students. The petitioner contends that as per the norms prescribed by AICTE, appointment of 16 members of teaching staff would suffice the requirement. However, according to Respondent-University, requirement of teaching staff, taking into consideration number of students i.e. 240, is 18.

¶20

4 It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner has appointed 8 members of teaching staff and their appointments have been approved by the University. The petitioner also contends that advertisement has been published for appointment of remaining 9 members of teaching staff and proposals, in that respect, are tendered to the University. It would be for the University to examine, as to whether the proposals are in order and have been received by the University.

¶21

5 Since the controversy is in respect of adequate number of staff either 16 or 18, it would be appropriate for the University to consider the issue and take appropriate decision in conformity with the norms prescribed by AICTE. If the petitioner complies with the requirement of appointment of 50% teaching staff, the University may, relying upon decision of Academic Council, permit the Institution to admit the students.

¶22

wp398914.odt

¶23

{3}

¶24

6 So far as post of Principal is concerned, the issue shall be governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Ratna Indira Gandhi College of Engineering and others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others , reported in 2011 AIR (SC) 1912. At this stage, while permitting the petitioner-Institution to admit students, the University may not insist upon appointment of an approved Principal and holding of charge of the post of Principal by the In-charge Principal would be a sufficient compliance.

¶25

7 Respondent-University, as such, is directed to take appropriate decision taking into consideration the observations made by this Court, referred to above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within seven days from today. The petitioner shall cause appearance before the University authorities on 26.06.2014 and no separate intimation requiring their presence before the University authorities shall be necessary.

¶26

8 With the directions, as aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

V.L.ACHLIYA R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

adb/wp398914

The Jalgaon Zilla Medicines Dealers Societys College of Pharmacy, Mamurabad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Jalgaon Zilla Medicines Dealers Societys College of Pharmacy, Mamurabad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prachu Shivajirao Palampalle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sambhaji Bajirao Ghodajkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Saroj Akshay Jaiswal Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Krushna Bhikaji Jadhav and Ors. Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gangamai Educational Trusts, Arts, Commerce and Science College, Nagaon Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rakhi Dharmendra Patni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Othres