Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 503
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
Bimal Maiti – Petitioner
Vs
University of Kalyani & Ors. – Respondents
WP No.20536 (W) of 2017
Decided On : 06-07-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirak Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debdutta Sen, Adv., Mr. Prasun Ghosh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, Adv., Mrs. M. Chaudhuri, Adv., Mr. N. Roy, Adv., For UGC : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Adv., Mr. Ranjan Deb, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Suchishmita Chatterjee, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of degrees conferred by the university in compliance with the UGC Act, 1956 and UGC regulations.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Admission Grievance - UGC Act, 1956, UGC (Establishment and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 - Sections 4(3), 6(2), 8(1)(iv) and (v) - UGC (Affiliation of Colleges of Universities) Regulations, 2009 - Summary: The court addressed the grievance of the petitioner seeking interference with the decision of the university to not grant admission for post-graduate study due to the lack of a valid graduate degree. The court discussed the UGC Act, 1956, UGC regulations, and the establishment Act of the university to determine the validity of the degrees and the authority of UGC to cancel degrees. The court found the writ petition without merit and dismissed it, with the interim order operating for three weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought interference with the university's decision to not grant admission for post-graduate study due to the lack of a valid graduate degree. The court analyzed the UGC Act, 1956, UGC regulations, and the establishment Act of the university to determine the validity of the degrees and the authority of UGC to cancel degrees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the writ petition without merit and dismissed it, with the interim order operating for three weeks.
Issues: Validity of degrees, authority of UGC to cancel degrees, compliance with UGC regulations, and the establishment Act of the university.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the degrees granted to the petitioner and others were not valid as they were not conferred by the university in accordance with the UGC Act, 1956 and UGC regulations. The court also found that the authority of UGC to cancel degrees was not a question for adjudication in this case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found to be without merit and dismissed, with the interim order operating for three weeks.
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks to espouse grievance of himself and others like him in seeking interference with decision of respondent no.1 University to not grant admission to them for post graduate study on the ground they do not possess valid graduate degree. By order dated 15th September, 2017 a co-ordinate Bench had granted leave to petitioner to prosecute the writ petition in representative capacity under Rule 12 of the Writ Rules and directed an interim measure as would appear from extract below:
“I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. I am not deciding the writ petition on merits today. I quite appreciate the submission of Mr. Choudhuri that if the petitioners have not obtained degrees which are recognized by the University, they are not entitled to be admitted. However, this is one of the issues that this Court will have to decide at the final hearing of the writ petition. If finally the petitioners succeed, they would have lost out the classes and it would be practically impossible for the University to compensate the petitioners at that stage for the loss of classes. Hence, purely as an interim workable measurer, I direct the University to permit Bimal Maity, Saikat Sarkar, Soumen Bhattacharjee, Moumita Some Chowdhury, Dhiman Mondal, Ranu Sahu and Anindya Sundar Giri who ranked amongst the first 22 candidates in the final merit list to attend classes in the Course in question till November 15, 2017 or until further orders whichever is earlier. I make it absolutely clear that this order will not create any right or equity in favour of the said seven students. This order will not be treated as a precedent under any circumstances. It is purely out of concern for the educational career of the seven young students that I am passing this order. It is understood that in the event the writ petition fails, the said seven students would not insist on any kind of right or entitlement to continue in the University.”
2. University Grants Commission (UGC) in exercise of power under section 26 of UGC Act, 1956 had formulated UGC (Establishment and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. Pursuant to said regulations, notice dated 7th June, 2012 had been issued regarding respondent no.4 University, confining it to grant degrees within State of Meghalaya. The notification was challenged by said respondent in High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura (Shillong Bench). A limited interim order dated 17th August, 2012 was made, text of which is reproduced below:
“17.08.2012
Heard Mr. SS Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. VGK Kynta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SC Shyam, learned CGC and Mr. ND Chullai, learned senior GA appearing for the State respondents.
After hearing the learned senior counsel and the learned CGC, it appears that the sole question which falls the consideration in the writ petition is whether the UGC has the authority to pass the impugned public notice. After going through the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003, we are of the prima facie view that such power is not vested with the UGC. We are therefore inclined to pass a limited stay order. Liberty is granted to the learned CGC to obtain instruction and place the same before this Court on the next returnable date. The prayer for interim order will be considered on 31.08.2012. Till then, the impugned order dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure 2) in so far as the petitioner University is concerned shall not be given effect to.”
3. Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appeared on behalf of petitioner and submitted, during subsistence of said interim order dated 17th August, 2012 there was no bar on respondent no.4 to grant affiliation to proforma respondent no.5, latter being an institute situate in Kolkata. Sai
