Maharashtra Cosmopolitan Education Society & another vs University of Pune & others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 Supreme(Bom) 627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Pandya N.J. Kochar R.J., JJ.
Maharashtra Cosmopolitan Education Society another .... Petitioners.
Versus
University of Pune others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 4639 4315 of 1999, decided on 24-8-1999.
Advocates appeared :
S.G. Aney, Sr.A. with S.V. Pitre, for petitioners.
Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud with G.S. Kulkarni i/b., Mrs. M.G. Kulkarni, for respondents Nos. 1 2.
Ms. Bhavana Jadhav, A.G.P., in W.P. No. 4639 of 1999, V.V. Pai, A.G.P., in W.P. No. 4315/99, for respondent No. 3.

Headnote:-Sections 82(5) and 83-ln matter; for which powers are vested in the University and its different functionaries, if there are no financial implications, the University need not go to the Government for approval-Its functionaries can take appropriate decision on merits of the case.- The Academic Council of the University which is one of the statutory functionaries of the University has to take a decision with regard to the number of students to be admitted in relation to a given subject, courses of study or any other activities where students are being admitted by an institution which is affiliated to the University. This is clearly a subject to be dealt with by one who is specialised in the field. Number of students cannot be arbitrarily fixed without keeping in mind the scope of education, requirement of infrastructure for the purpose and the availability of teachers who are professional in the field. In other words it is upon the availability of faculty, requirement of a particular pedagogy as well as the requirement of infrastructure. Sub-section (5) of Section 83 of Maharashtra University Act relates to the grant or otherwise of application for affiliation or recognisation of the institutions. The number of seats obviously would form a very ll1inor and small part of the entire exercise undergone for considering the question of grant of either affiliation or recognition. Obviously, in the ll1atter of the finance it is the State Government that must have a final say. In matters where there are no financial implication, obviously the University need not go back to the Government for seeking its approval. If by increasing the seats no financial burden is shown to be falling on the Government, obviously, there is no need for the University to go back to the Government after its Academic Council has taken a decision under Section 83(3). Where the institutions not getting any grant from the Government, there will be no question of additional financial burden. While taking decision under Section 83(3) or exercising its power given to the University or to any of its functionaries under the Act, the University need not go to the Government for its approval in all and every matter but before approaching the Government it should first decide whether the question involves any financial implication or not. In all the matters where the question of budgetary resources of the Government arise, the University shall have to take sanction of the Government. No sanction is required when there are no financial implication. In absence of financial implication, no approval of the Government will be required either. The decision taken by the Academic Council can straightaway be intimated to the respective management without waiting as because of the aforesaid reason neither approval nor sanction of the State Government is required. In order to see that in future there is no grievance either on the part of the student or on the part of the management with regard to either objecting, paying or recovering of higher fees, as and when the decision is taken in this regard by the University, the students who are admitted in the current year shall be put to notice and shall be intimated in clear terms that the decision taken by the University with regard to increase of fees shall be binding on each of the students so admitted and on demand being made by the University the students shall pay of the balance amount within two weeks from the date of intimation. The intimation in this regard given by the respective management to the respective students in the form of a general notice as also an individual notice to each of the students shall be treated as a demand made by the University under this order.

JUDGMENT - PANDYA N.J., J.:---Rule. Advocates for the respondents waive service. Returnable forthwith. Heard.

2. The admission to Bachelor of Computer Science (B.C.S.) or Master of Computer Science (M.C.S.) course being managed exclusively by the colleges is now taken over by centralised admission procedure. However, so far as petitioners before us are concerned they do not have any objection on this and on the contrary they accept the said procedure. This point therefore does not survive.

3. The fees structure of the said two courses is governed by the ordinance which is dating prior to the appointment of Dr. Takawale Committee. Dr. Takawale Committee being appointed recently has taken into consideration the present position and the financial requirement for running the aforesaid courses in Computer Science and has recommended higher fees.

4. On behalf of the University Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud has instruction to state that the said report will be processed in its entirety and more particularly with reference to the fees structure as suggested. Once a decision is taken by the functionary under the Maharashtra Universities Act in this regard, it shall be communicated to the management of the respective education institutions. Looking to the urgency of the matter, the University and its functionaries shall take the decision as early as possible, in no case later than 31-10-1999. In view of this statement made on behalf of the University, this controversy also would not survive.

5. There is question of number of students to be admitted in each of the courses. However, in this regard the University has already recommended increase in the seats and the matter is pending before the Government. Counsel for the University further says that if this Court holds that with regard to the increase of seats, the University can take its own decision and need not seek prior approval of the Government, the University is prepared to do so. On this point, the parties will be heard and decision will be given.

6. The question of N.R.I. quota having been reduced from 10% to 5% also does not survive as the University has stated in its affidavit that the quota is 10% and is not reduced to 5% as apprehended.

7. We have heard the parties on the question of requirement of approval of the Government. Sections 81, 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act were pointed out to us.

8. At the bar it was pointed out that section 81 requires the applicant institution seeking affiliation or recognition to mention the number of students admitted to courses of studying and section 81(1)(c) prescribes that students so admitted shall not exceed the limits prescribed by the University and the State Government from time to time.

9. Had this been the only provision in the Act, it could have been probably suggested that the State Government has a role to play in fixing the limit.

10. However, as one goes to section 83, sub-section (3), Clause (c) it becomes clear that this is the only enabling provision for fixing the number of students in relation to the course or class or division of that course. The provision enables the University to take a decision in its Academic Council. The relevant provisions reads as under:

"83(1). On receipt of the permission from the State Government under section 82 the Academic Council of the University shall consider grant of first time affilitation to the new college or institution by following the prescribed procedure given in sub-section (2) and after taking into account whether and the extent to which the stipulated conditions have been fulfilled by the college or institution. The decision of the Academic Council in this regard shall be final.

(2) For the purpose of considering the application for the grant of affiliation the Academic Council shall cause an enquiry by a Committee constituted for the purpose by it.

(3) The Academic Council shall decide:

(a) whether affiliation should be granted or rejected;

(b) whether affiliation should be granted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document