Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 1002
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR)
ARUN MISHRA, MEENA V. GOMBER, JJ.
Association of Self-Financing Universities of Rajasthan
vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12867 of 2010
Decided On : 03/10/2012
The amendment to the Rajasthan Private Universities Laws Act, 2010, changing the designations of Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Pro-Vice-Chancellor to Chair Person, President, and Pro-President respectively, was within the legislative competence of the State and did not violate any fundamental rights, including Article 14. The amendment was based on a rational and intelligible classification and was not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2010 - NOMENCLATURE CHANGE - VALIDITY - UGC ACT - COORDINATION AND STANDARDS - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ARTICLE 14 - LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE - POLICY MATTERS: The Rajasthan Private Universities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010, which changed the designations of Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Pro-Vice-Chancellor to Chair Person, President, and Pro-President respectively in 13 private universities, was challenged as ultra vires and repugnant to the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act). The Court held that the amendment was within the legislative competence of the State and did not violate any fundamental rights, including Article 14. The Court found that there is no fundamental right in the nomenclature of academic heads of private universities and that the UGC Act does not deal with such propositions. The Court also held that the amendment was based on a rational and intelligible classification and was not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an association of 16 self-financing universities of Rajasthan, challenged the Rajasthan Private Universities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010, which changed the designations of Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Pro-Vice-Chancellor to Chair Person, President, and Pro-President respectively in 13 private universities. The petitioner contended that the amendment was ultra vires and repugnant to the UGC Act, inasmuch as it changed the designations of members of the petitioner-association.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the amendment was within the legislative competence of the State and did not violate any fundamental rights, including Article 14. The Court found that there is no fundamental right in the nomenclature of academic heads of private universities and that the UGC Act does not deal with such propositions. The Court also held that the amendment was based on a rational and intelligible classification and was not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rajasthan Private Universities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010, is ultra vires and repugnant to the UGC Act? 2. Whether the amendment violates any fundamental rights, including Article 14? 3. Whether the amendment is based on a rational and intelligible classification and is not arbitrary or discriminatory?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amendment was within the legislative competence of the State and did not violate any fundamental rights, including Article 14. The Court found that there is no fundamental right in the nomenclature of academic heads of private universities and that the UGC Act does not deal with such propositions. The Court also held that the amendment was based on a rational and intelligible classification and was not arbitrary or discriminatory. 2. The Court held that the amendment was within the legislative competence of the State and did not violate any fundamental rights, including Article 14. The Court found that there is no fundamental right in the nomenclature of academic heads of private universities and that the UGC Act does not deal with such propositions. The Court also held that the amendment was based on a rational and intelligible classification and was not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Rajasthan Private Universities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010, was not ultra vires or arbitrary.
ARUN MISHRA, C.J. :
The petitioner is an association of 16 self financing universities of Rajasthan established to promote higher and professional education in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner association has questioned vires of the Rajasthan Private Universities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2010) being ultra vires and repugnant to the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Act), inasmuch as it has changed the designations of members of the petitioner-association by the aforesaid amendment made in the Rajasthan Private Universities Law Act (Act 15 of 2010) substituting the words Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor to Chair Person, President and Pro-President respectively in the 13 Acts of the Private Universities mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Act of 2010. Thereafter, the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan vide communication dated 15-7-2010 has directed the Member Universities of petitioner-association to modify the university record accordingly, and not to use the old designations of Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor in future.
2. It is submitted in the writ petition that when the self financing universities were established in the year 2007 after due deliberations by high level committee, the designations of Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor were specifically noted and maintained in the private universities as per the convention and these designations are well known and widely accepted under the UGC Act. It is further averred that the UGC Act deals with the coordination and determination of standards in the universities so that homogenous structure can be evolved throughout the Country in respect of universities and education provided therein. It is also averred in the writ petition that the coordination of practices has been given paramount importance in the UGC Act. The amendment made in the Act 15 of 2010 would lead to creation of divergent, inconsistent and disparate practices which will be against the spirit and purport of the UGC Act. Section 14 of the Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 1995 provides the designation/nomenclature of Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor etc. Even the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Anti-Ragging Regulations, 2009) also provides that the academic Head shall mean Vice-Chancellor in case of a university or a deemed to be university and the Principal or the Director or such other designation as the executive head of the institution or the college. The word President has not been specified by the UGC Act in the aforesaid Regulations. The action is discriminatory and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The change of nomenclature is tilting the balance of educational institutions towards political, administrative and commercial lines as Chair Person, President and Pro-President are the names used in such bodies.
3. In the reply filed by State Government, it is contended that the petitioner association cannot maintain the writ application. Except with respect to two universities, namely, Jaipur National University and Singhania University, Pacheri Badi, Jhunjhunu, all other 11 private universities have submitted draft statutes for approval before the State Government in compliance of the Amendment made by the Act 15 of 2010 and amendments have also been published with respect to several universities. The petitioner association has not mentioned the aforesaid material aspect. It has also been submitted in the reply that the Act 15 of 2010 can be questioned only on two grounds, viz., lack of legislative competence or violation of any fundamental right guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or any other Constitutional provision. There is a presumption with regard to constitutionality of an Act and the onus lies h
