Dismissed

Akter Begum v. The Osmania University

Telangana HC25 Sept 2012WA/1034/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals by students against the Single Judge's order rejecting their application for B.Ed. result declaration. The Court held that as the affiliated colleges faced non-renewal of affiliation, the results could not be declared and dismissed the writ appeals.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent colleges to fulfill criteria for affiliation and apply to the University; writ appeals dismissed.

Akter Begum Vs The Osmania University — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NOs.1033 AND 1034 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:25.9.2012

¶5

W.A. NO.1033 OF 2012 Between: Vijay Kumar Pathi and others … Appellants And The Osmania University Rep. by its Registrar Tarnaka Hyderabad and others … Respondents W.A. NO.1034 OF 2012 Akter Begum and others … Appellants And The Osmania University Rep. by its Registrar Tarnaka Hyderabad and others … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1033 AND 1034 OF 2012

¶9

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶10

The appellants – petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Hon’ble Single Judge in dismissing their applications filed for a direction to the respondents to declare the results of the appellants who appeared for the B.Ed., examinations in the Month of June, 2012, pending dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶11

Since the issue raised in both the writ appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶12

The Hon’ble Single Judge initially dismissed W.A.M.P. No.26822 of 2012 in W.P. No.15749 of 2012 by order dt.1.8.2012, against which W.A.No.1033 of 2012 is filed; and following the said order dt.1.8.2012, His Lordship, in similar facts and circumstances, by order dt.7.8.2012 dismissed W.A.M.P. No.26820 of 2012 in W.P. No.15753 of 2012, against which W.A. No.1034 of 2012 is filed.

¶13

Hence, it would be suffice to refer to the facts relating to W.A. No.1033 of 2012.

¶14

The appellants – writ petitioners, who are students of respondent No.3 – college, filed Writ Petition No.15749 of 2012 to declare the action of the respondents in not receiving the examination forms and thereby preventing the petitioners from appearing in the B.Ed., Final

¶15

Examinations, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential directions. In W.P.M.P. No.20318 of 2012 filed in the writ petition, the Hon’ble Single Judge directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to receive the examination forms and issue hall tickets to the appellants – petitioners, which will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed W.V.M.P. No.2365 of 2012 seeking vacation of the said interim order. Appellants - writ petitioners filed another application being W.P.M.P. No.26822 of 2012 for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to declare the result of the appellants.

¶16

The Hon’ble Single Judge, after hearing the parties, passed impugned order dt.1.8.2012 observing that as the petitioners were permitted to appear for the examinations in the light of the interim order of this Court, the relief prayed in W.P.M.P. No.20318 of 2012 has worked itself out and therefore W.V.M.P. No.2365 of 2012 has become infructuous, dismissed the said application. With regard to W.P.M.P. No.26822 of 2012, His Lordship held that unless respondent No.3 – College is granted affiliation by respondent No.1 – University, the petitioners are not entitled to get their results declared because their very admission into the B.Ed., course in an institution which has no affiliation is in question, and dismissed the application.

¶17

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dt.1.8.2012 in dismissing W.P.M.P. No.26822 of 2012, the appellants - writ petitioners filed W.A. No.1033 of 2012. Following the said order, under similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Single Judge, on 7.8.2012 dismissed W.A.M.P. No.26820 of 2012 in W.P. No.15753 of 2012, and aggrieved by the said order dt.7.8.2012, W.A. No.1034 of 2012 is filed.

¶18

On 24.8.2012, when both the appeals were listed before us, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – University submitted that connected W.P. Nos.21431 and 21443 of 2012 were disposed of by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 16.7.2012 directing the University to consider the applications of the petitioners – colleges for renewal of

¶19

affiliation within two months from the date of receipt of the said order and the University would pass orders within one week and communicate the same to the writ petitioners therein. Accordingly, since the decision so to be taken by the University will have a bearing on the appeals, they were adjourned.

¶20

Today, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – University produced orders dt.29.8.2012 passed by the University in the matter. It appears that considering the question of extension of provisional affiliation to the respondent colleges in both the appeals -- Rabindranath Tagore College of Education, Chevella Revenue Division, Kummera Village, Ranga Reddy District and National College of Education, Munidevunipally, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District, respectively -- the University passed the said orders to the effect that in spite of not granting affiliation and not recommending the colleges for inclusion in the EdCET-2011 admissions for the academic year 2011-12, the candidates are admitted into the colleges. Hence, the University issued show cause notices to the colleges. The colleges were directed to submit their explanations to the show cause notices by 17.7.2012 and the explanations were also received by the University. It appears that the University found that no defense has been given for any of the grounds raised in the show cause notices. Accordingly, the University held that the explanations submitted by the colleges are found to be unsatisfactory. Relying on the reports of the inspection committees and unsatisfactory explanation of the colleges, the Vice-Chancellor has decided not to grant extension of provisional affiliation to the said colleges to offer B.Ed., course for the academic year 2011-12.

¶21

We have considered the said orders passed by the University, the impugned orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

It appears to us that there is no fault on the part of the appellants - petitioners who have been admitted by the respondent – colleges.

¶23

Although the colleges were not recommended for admission of students from counseling of EdCET 2012 for the academic year 201112, they had participated in the said counselling without any authority or without having any extension of provisional affiliation for the said academic year 2011-12 and has admitted the writ petitioners – students. It appears to us that at the whims of the college authorities the appellants – writ petitioners are losing their valuable year in the hands of this type of colleges and thereby also suffered in their career as well as financially and mentally.

¶24

On considering the matter, by the impugned orders the Hon’ble Single Judge rightly rejected the appellants – writ petitioners’ applications for declaration of their result of the examinations. We find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. We find no merit in these appeals.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we can only direct the respondent –colleges’ authorities to take all necessary steps in the matter so that they can fulfil all the criteria as has been pointed out by the University for grant of the affiliation, and after compliance of the conditions for the affiliation, they shall apply before the University. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - University expressed his opinion that after such compliance if the respondent colleges apply for the affiliation, their case will be considered by the University.

¶26

The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed.

¶27

We request the Hon’ble Single Judge to take up the writ petitions for final disposal at an early date at His Lordship’s convenience.

¶28

Liberty is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioners to make a request before the Hon’ble Single Judge for taking up the writ petitions at an early date for final disposal.

¶29

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶30

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 25.9.2012 bnr

Akter Begum v. The Osmania University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akter Begum v. The Osmania University

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

REliance Infratel Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commision

Balala Hakkula Sangham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Ram Mohan Reddy Vs The Principal Secretary

Fouzia Sultana, Vs The State of A.P.

United Bank of India, Vs M/s Reil Products Limited, (In liquidation)

M/s Shree Raghav Ispath (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Central Power Distribution Company