Allowed

Association of Private Self Financing Inst. v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Sept 2010CWP/13765/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions by private self-financing institutions seeking affiliation and quashing of impugned order were allowed. The court directed Universities to grant affiliation to colleges with AICTE-approved intake enhancements, holding the principle of Mata Sudarshan Tilak case settled.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Universities to grant affiliation; quashing of Annexure P-4

Association of Private Self Financing… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.13765 of 2010 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: September 21, 2010

¶4

Association of Private Self Financing Institution of Haryana & others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Haryana & others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

PRESENT:

¶14

Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1, 5 & 6.

¶16

Mr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shirish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶17

Mr.S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶18

Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate.

¶19

¶20

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶21

This order will dispose of three Civil Writ Petition Nos.13765 of 2010 (Association of Private Self Financing Institution of Haryana, Sonepat & others Vs. The State of Haryana & others), 14993 of 2010 (Shivalik Institute of Engineering and Technology, Village Aliyaspur, District Ambala & another Vs. State of Haryana &

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No.13765 of 2010 : 2 :

¶23

others) and 16249 of 2010 (Sant Garib Dass Educational & Charitable Trust (Regd.), VPO Ladrawan, Distt.Jhajjar and another). The facts are being taken from CWP No.13765 of 2010.

¶24

This petition is filed by Association of private self financing Institution with a prayer to issue writ for quashing Annexure P-4 and for writ of mandamus directing the respondent-University/ Board of Technical Education to grant affiliation to the Colleges mentioned in Annexure P-1 for original/enhance intake capacity as per approval granted by the All India Council of Technical Education. After filing of the writ petition, certain other Colleges also filed application for being impleaded as petitioners, which prayer was allowed and as such, this order will hold good for those colleges as well.

¶25

When this case came up for hearing on 13.9.2010, it was observed as under:-

¶26

“This petition is filed by Colleges, which are members of the petitioner-Institution with a grievance that all the petitioner-Colleges have either been granted enhancement in intake capacity (for existing Colleges), which have been approved by the AICTE, but yet the State as well as the University are not taking any action to grant affiliation. There is no order denying the affiliation as such.

¶27

Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Institution has drawn my attention to Annexure P-3, which would indicate that there is no requirement of obtaining a `No Objection Certificate'

¶28

Civil Writ Petition No.13765 of 2010 : 3 :

¶29

from the State Government, which primarily is a reason with the University not to grant affiliation. The counsel also refers to that part of Annexure P-3 where it is provided that Regional Office will invite the response on the applications from the concerned State Government and the Affiliating University within 30 days. It is here that the counsel for the University would submit that the objection raised by the University as well as the Government for enhancing the intake capacity has not been taken into consideration. The stand of the Government was not kept in view.

¶30

The issue, in my view, would not be that. Question is what is to happen if the AICTE grants permission for enhancing the intake. In support, Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram has referred to Mata Sudarshan Tilak Raj Dhawan Educational Trust, Panchkula Vs. State of Haryana, 2002(2) SCT 673 to say that this issue, on all four corners, is squarely covered by the decision of this Court. While allowing the writ petition of identical matter, the Division Bench of this Court had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram and another, 2000 (3) SCT 543 (SC). It is for the University to take into consideration the law and the position and pass an

¶31

Civil Writ Petition No.13765 of 2010 : 4 :

¶32

appropriate order either granting or denying affiliation. Counsel for the University prays for two weeks time to do the needful. However, one week time is granted to the University to take an appropriate decision”.

¶33

When the case came up for hearing on 21.9.2010, Sh.Balram Gupta and Shri S.C.Sibal, appearing for Universityrespondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, submitted before the Court that the Universities have decided to grant affiliation. Mr.Narender Hooda, who had earlier put in appearance on behalf of respondent-Pt. Bhagat Dayal Sharma, University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, however, prayed for permission to withdraw as he did not have the instructions to appear on behalf of the University. The permission was declined. The request for adjournment to seek instructions from the University was also declined. Since the position of law is fairly settled in Mata Sudarshan Tilak Raj Dhawan Educational Trust's case (supra) , which has followed Jaya Gokul Educational Trust's case (Supra), there would hardly be any scope with the University now to deny affiliation.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the Universities to grant affiliation to the petitionerInstitution with all necessary consequences. Consequently, order Annexure P-4 shall stand quashed.

¶35

Copy of the order be given under the signature of Special

¶36

Secretary of the Court.

¶37

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶38

September 21, 2010 khurmi

Association of Private Self Financing Inst. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Association of Private Self Financing Inst. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Kapton S/O Sh.Ram Kishan Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd.

Sh. Har Sarup S/O Shri Satpal Vs Maruti Udyog Limited

Sh.Devinder Singh S/O Shr Mahabir Singh Vs Maruti Udyog Limited

Ramanpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mehar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Raghav Gomber Vs Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and Anr.