Allowed

Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College v. Punjab University and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2011CWP/16841/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the University cannot withhold approval for Part III classes pending an inquiry into a faculty member without issuing a show-cause notice and passing a formal order. The respondents were directed to grant approval, subject to the final outcome of the inquiry, and to cooperate with the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to grant approval for the petitioner to conduct B.Com III and M.Sc (Hon's) classes, subject to the final outcome of the pending inquiry.

Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College Vs… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

CWP NO.16841 OF 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP NO.16841 OF 2010 DECIDED ON- 21.01.2011

¶5

Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College, Raikot, Ludhiana

¶6

……PETITIONER

¶7

Versus

¶8

Panjab University and another

¶9

……RESPONDENTS

¶10

Coram HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶11

Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Sanwaria, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J(Oral)

¶13

Costs have been paid.

¶14

Reply is taken on record.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that it as an institution imparting education and the students who are studying in the institution run by them have already undertaken the course pertaining to B.Com and M.sc (IT). The students have completed their first and second year of the prescribed course and have also appeared in the examination for the Part III and the result of these students have not been declared on account of the fact that one of the Faculty member of the college is facing allegations of having committed irregularities.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have withheld the formal approval for running B.Com III and M.Sc (IT) classes only on the ground that they have not cooperated with the University in providing the necessary material sought by them and pertaining to the inquiry qua one Tarun Ghai, who is the Faculty member in question.

¶17

Upon notice of motion having been issued, the

¶18

CWP NO.16841 OF 2010

¶19

¶20

University has filed its reply and has placed reliance upon Section 11.1 of Chapter 8(A) of the Punjab University Calendar Vol. I, which is extracted hereunder:-

¶21

“If, at any time Vice Chancellor finds that a college appoints a Principal or a teacher whose qualifications do not confirm to those laid down by the University or is not complying with the requirements of Section 27 of the Punjab University Act, various regulation and rules of the University, or any instructions issued by the Syndicate, the Syndicate will have the authority to impose one or more of the following penalties:-

¶22

(i)Students of the college concerned shall not be accepted for the University examination;

¶23

(ii)The college staff shall be debarred from University work,such as appointment as examiners, superintendents of examination centers, etc.

¶24

(iii)The Principal or the teacher concerned shall be debarred from seeking election to a University body or his name shall be removed from the list of members of University body;

¶25

(iv)The papers for grants to the college shall not be forwarded to the State Government/University Grants Commission;

¶26

(v)The University may withdraw affiliation granted to the college, in part or in whole.”

¶27

It is contended by them before this Court that since the petitioner has not responded to Annexure P9 which is the information sought by them pertaining to the case of Mr. Tarun Ghai and that further inquiry being pending before the Chancellor, the formal approval for holding of classes qua B.Com III and M.Sc (Hon's) cannot be granted.

¶28

To a pointed question of this Court as to whether an order has been passed pursuant to Section 11.1 regarding the with holding of the affiliation to the petitioner,the answer of the respondents is in negative.

¶29

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the stand of the respondent seems to be unjustified. If they

¶30

¶31

CWP NO.16841 OF 2010

¶32

wanted to proceed against the College in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.1 of Chapter 8(9) of the Punjab University Calender Vol.I, then it was incumbent upon them to issue a show cause notice and after affording them an opportunity pass any of the orders so contemplated in the aforesaid Section. But under no circumstances can they say that they will shirk the responsibility of passing an order while inflicting its consequences upon the petitioner.

¶33

For the aforesaid circumstances and also for the reason that prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the study of the students has been jeopardized on account of the action of the respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct that the respondents shall grant the approval to the petitioner college for conducting the B.Com III and M.S.c(Hon's) classes.

¶34

These directions have been prompted also for the reason that inquiry is said to be pending before the Chancellor and for this reason alone, the students who have already undertaken admission in Part III after having been allowed to pursue their course in part I and II cannot be held amenable to the proceedings which the University and the college may be facing interse, moreso, in the absence of any specific order, inhibiting the petitioner from conducting the Course in question. Needless to say, the approval shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner. The Court is also of the opinion that it would be in the interest of the petitioner to co-operate with the respondent.

¶35

Disposed of.

¶36

( MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶37

21.01.2011 mamta

Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College v. Punjab University and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Ganga Giri Janta Girls College v. Punjab University and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Gir Vs Gurmelo & Ors.

Ritu Vs Pardeep Kumar and Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs St of Hry & Ors.

Uco Bank Thru Its Zonal Manager Vs P.O., Central Govt. Indl. Tribunal Cum L.C. & Anr.

Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.