The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the University had the power to reduce intake seats, it must consider the financial viability of the colleges and the minimum number of students required for operational costs. Additionally, any order modifying the renewal of affiliation must be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

Petitioners are private/non-Government B. Ed. Colleges affiliated with the University of Jammu, respondent No. 1 (for short the University). They have been allowed different intake of students. Faced with the evil of non-attendance of students in the B. Ed. Colleges, the University by virtue of a decision taken in the 6th meeting of its College Development Council (CDC), respondent No. 4, held on 03.07.2014 has devised a formula to reduce the intake seats of these colleges for the session 2014-2015 proportionate to the level of non-attendance noticed in the course of two inspections held during the previous session. Pursuant to the said decision and formula, the intake of students in the petitioner-colleges among some other B. Ed. colleges for the session 2014-15 has been considerably reduced. According to the petitioners, the University has issued a list of as many as 76 colleges for participating in centralized counseling for admission showing their sanctioned and reduced intake for the session 2014-15. The sanctioned intake and the reduced intake of the 16 colleges, who are the petitioners, is culled out and tabulated in para 8 of the petition as follows:

(Tabullar Matter Is Omitted.......Ed)

2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the reduction in their intake seats for the session 2014-15, petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir seeking appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision/formula devised for reducing the intake seats and the list issued by the University so far as it reduces intake seats of the petitioner-colleges for the session 2014-15. Besides, the petitioners seek writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commending the respondents to allocate them the students for the session 2014-15 as per their sanctioned intake.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and pursed the record on the file and that produced by Mr. W. S. Nargal, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Petitioner-colleges have assailed the reduction in intake mainly on the ground that the decision is totally illegal, arbitrary and violates the fundamental right of the petitioners. It is contended that before taking the decision to reduce the intake and issuing the impugned list, respondents were required to afford each petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard by issuing show cause notice asking them to explain their position. However, neither any show cause notice was issued nor opportunity of being heard provided. It is contended further that the impugned decision is arbitrary inasmuch as petitioner-colleges have been put to suffer financial hardship and difficulty as they have put in place state-of-art infrastructure commensurate to their sanctioned intake and have engaged specialized faculty paying them handsome salaries. Petitioner-colleges have also questioned the bona fide of the inspection reports alleging that the same were motivated and maneuvered inasmuch as the inspection teams while conducting inspections have restored to various malpractices. It is contended that decision has been taken without ascertaining as to whether the inspection reports were genuinely prepared and without confronting the petitioners with these reports. Petitioners have contended also that the reduction in seat violates Article 14 of the Constitution for the reason that they have been singled out as compared to private and Government colleges importing education in other disciplines and streams. It is also contended that the University vide its communication dated 28.05.2014 had on one hand permitted the petitioners and the other colleges to make up the short fall in attendance of students who had joined late by holding extra classes and on the other hand have reduced the seats on the basis of manipulated and motivated reports. Petitioners have also raised a question as to ho