IMPORTANT POINT
The rejection of a proposal for approval of Ordinances and Regulations must be in accordance with the law and justified, and the provisions of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 must be interpreted in a manner that ensures fairness and compliance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the University, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhavan, Patna.

2. In all these writ applications, the petitioners have challenged the communication as contained in letter no.BU- 50/2017-2360 GS(1) dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure-‘10’) issued under the signature of the O.S.D. (Judicial), Governor’s Secretariat, Bihar whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been informed that the proposals for approval of draft Ordinance and Regulations of Distance and Online Distance Learning (ODL) mode including B.Ed. Course (ODL mode) of B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur submitted by its letter dated 27.09.2017 has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of B.Ed. Course the matter had travelled to this Court earlier in CWJC No.23014 of 2018 (Vijay Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar). This Court allowed the said writ application vide its judgment dated 23.12.2020. The reasoning and rationale provided in the said judgment of learned coordinate Bench would equally apply in respect of the courses, the list of which may be found with the first supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in the present writ application.

4. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has taken CWJC No.14368 of 2018 as the lead case and has heard Ms. Aditi Hansaria, learned counsel for the petitioners. In other writ applications, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions but for the reference the lead case is being taken for discussion.

5. Challenge in this writ application is to the communication as mentioned above contained in Annexure- ‘10’ to the writ application whereunder the proposal in respect of these petitioners has been rejected for the solitary reason that prior assent for Ordinance and Regulations to run the course was not taken by the University. Although, Annexure-‘10’ refers another reason also with respect to the conditional order of NCTE but learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said reason is in respect of B.Ed. Course, as such, this Court would not be dealing with said condition no.(b) in the operative part of the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while rejecting the proposal on the ground of there being no prior assent, it has been further stated that “Raj Bhavan is of the consistent view that no Ordinance & Regulations shall be approved ex-post-facto under the provisions contained in Article-36(5) and Article-38(3) of the Statute. The Raj Bhavan cannot obliterate the original Statute.”

7. Learned counsel submits that on a bare perusal of the impugned order it would appear that it wrongly refers Article of the Statute because the Statute number and in respect of which matter the Statutes are made have not been mentioned in the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order is in fact referring to Section 36(5) and Section 38(3) of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1976’). It is submitted that so far as sub-section (5) of Section 36 is concerned, it is in respect of a ‘Statute’ which is to be made by the senate of the university in accordance with Section 36 of the Act of 1976. Sub-section (5) of Section 36 says that a Statute passed by the Senate shall have no validity until it has been assented to by the Chancellor.

8. It is further submitted that Section 37 deals with the Ordinances and it lays down the matters which are to be provided under an Ordinance. The Ordinances are to be made by the syndicate subject to the provisions of the Act of 1976 and the Statute. According to Section 38, an ordinance made by the syndicate under Section 37 is to be submitted as soon as may be to the senate and thereupon it shall be the duty of the senate to consider the Ordinance at its next meeting and the senate may by resolution pas