Dismissed

Poddar Publice School Shiksha v. State Anilam Husbandry Anr.

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2014SAW/1066/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of four appeals against a Single Judge's decision dismissing writ petitions by livestock training institute appellants. The High Court upheld the University's new affiliation norms, holding they must be followed by applicants with NOCs granted subsequent to the norms' issuance.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed as devoid of merit.

Poddar Publice School Shiksha Vs State Anilam… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

¶3

Jaipur Bench * *

¶4

DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1066/ 2013 DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1067/ 2013 DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1068/ 2013 DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1095/ 2013

¶5

Dat e of Or der ::: 1 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 4

¶6

Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Aj ay Rast ogi Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice JK Ran k a

¶7

Mr. Madhukar Tewari, for appellant. Mr. Arpit Srivastava, Dy. Govt. Adv. for respondent-1. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, for respondent-2.

¶8

All the four appeals since involves similar controversy for consideration are disposed of by the present order.

¶9

Indisputably, NOC was granted to the present appellants to run a new live stock assistant training institute vide order dt.20.6.2012 by the state govt. on certain terms and conditions and clause-6 of NOC indicates that such institution has to take affiliation from the University of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Bikaner at their own and by the time the matter was processed for consideration, the University laid down its norms for the purpose to grant affiliation vide notification dt.19.1.2013 and 4.3.2013 and after fresh norms came into force such of the institution to whom NOC was granted by the state govt. were informed to subm it their application in the prescribed form in term s of the norms laid down for affiliation vide notification dt.19.1.2013 and 4.3.2013.

¶10

¶11

Each of the appellant preferred writ petition before the ld. Single Judge with the grievance that such norms which are now prescribed by the University by issuing notification dt.19.1.2013 and 4.3.2013 could be made applicable with retrospective effect and two different standards for grant of affiliation to the institution seeking affiliation cannot be laid down by the respondent-University.

¶12

Ld. Single Judge of this Court after taking into consideration the material on record observed that once the fresh norms have been laid down vide notification dt.19.1.2013 & 4.3.2013, such of the institutions to whom NOC has been granted by the state govt. are supposed to follow for maintaining the academic standards.

¶13

Indisputably, in the instant case, either of the appellant has not furnished application in the prescribed form obviously that is to be made in term s of the notification laid down by the University of which reference has been made above.

¶14

Main thrust of submission of counsel for the appellant is that once the application was submitted, that has to be considered under the norms which were applicable and in vogue on the date of submission of application and if fresh norms are laid down by the University vide its notification dt.19.1.2013 and 4.3.2013 that cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect.

¶15

¶16

We do not find any justification in the submission made for the reason that once fresh norms have come into force to grant affiliation in maintaining the minim um academic standards of the institution such existing norm s can certainly be applicable to the institutions seeking affiliation and cannot claim parity with the existing affiliated institutions and this what the ld. Single Judge also considered in passing of the order impugned and taking note thereof after hearing the counsel for parties, we do not find any substance in either of

¶17

the appeal.

¶18

The appeals being devoid of merit accordingly dismissed. [ JK Ran k a] , J. [ Aj ay Rast ogi] , J. dsr/ - "All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"

¶19

Datar Singh P.S.

Poddar Publice School Shiksha v. State Anilam Husbandry Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poddar Publice School Shiksha v. State Anilam Husbandry Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Associated Engineers Vs U O I and Another

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Narottam Lal Mahavar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Gayati Rathore Vs Chairman Cum Managing Dir Ors.

Sukhram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

K M B Parshudhan Sahayak Vs State Animal and Husbsndry Depanr