JUDGMENT :

1. The Rajiv Gandhi University is before this Court challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.50150/2019 c/w 45577/2018, 45727/2018, 20786/2019, 20790/2019, W.P.Nos. 48132/2019, 48148/2019, 48172/2019, 48193/2019, 48201/2019, 48215/2019, 48234/2019, 48262/2019 and 48298/2019.

2. W.P.Nos.50150/2019 c/w 45577/2018, 45727/2018, 20786/2019, 20790/2019 had been filed by the colleges, whereas W.P.Nos. 48132/2019, 48148/2019, 48172/2019, 48193/2019, 48201/2019, 48215/2019, 48234/2019, 48262/2019 and 48298/2019 had been filed by the students of the aforesaid colleges challenging the order passed by the respondents-State dated 14.01.2019 withdrawing the affiliation to the aforesaid colleges, to quash the decision of the Syndicate vide resolution dated 29.06.2019 by virtue of which the Academic Council had recommended for withdrawal of the affiliation to the aforesaid colleges, for certiorari to quash the decision of the Senate held on 27.5.2019, by virtue of which it was resolved to withdraw the affiliation to the said colleges and for quashing of affiliation notifications dt. 18.10.2019 by virtue of which the said colleges were disaffiliated by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.

3. The students also, having challenged the same, had sought permission to continue their studies in the said colleges.

4. The learned Single Judge vide the aforesaid order dated 28.2.2020 allowed the said writ petitions by holding that the aforesaid decision of the Senate dated 27.4.2019, the resolution of the Syndicate dated 29.6.2019, the notification issued by State Government dated 14.10.2019 and the disaffiliation notification dated 18.10.2019 were not in conformity with Section 48 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (‘Act’ for short) on the ground that there was no notice issued by the Syndicate to the petitioners, copy of the notice and written statement was not sent to the petitioner-colleges, no report was prepared after the Inspector by the Local Inspection Committee (LIC), the Senate has not held a proper enquiry, these going to the root of the matter, the requirement of Section 48 not having been fulfilled, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the colleges and directed the University to approve the admissions of the students relating to the academic years in question and issue marks cards/certificates accordingly.

5. It is aggrieved by the same that the University is before this Court challenging the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge.

6. Sri.B.S. Sachin, learned counsel for the petitioner – University submits that

6.1. The University received certain information that fake marks cards belonging to the students of the aforesaid colleges are being circulated, as such the Vice-Chancellor constituted an Inspection team to conduct surprise inspection of the premises.

6.2. The Inspection team conducted a surprise inspection on 7.3.2018 and found certain incriminating data stored in the computer maintained in the office of the said colleges, which led to a suspicion of tampering of the marks card by the said colleges.

6.3. The Inspection team collected the material like hard disk, etc., and handed over the same to the University.

6.4. After going through the report of the Inspection Team, the Vice-Chancellor constituted a team to look into the material made available by the Inspecting team; a technical committee was also constituted, the said committees on going through the said material and after holding an enquiry are stated to have come to a prima facie conclusion that the aforesaid colleges have indulged in manufacturing fake marks card and making it available to the students.

6.5. The Committee submitted a report on 23.8.2019 to the Vice-Chancellor recommending a detailed police investigation. Hence, the University registered a complaint on 12.3.2018 in Crime No.0097/2018, which was referred to CID for further investigation.

6.6. The Vice Chancel