Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 1081
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Janta Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti - Appellant
Versus
Jiwaji University & Another - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8999-2012 [Alongwith Writ Petition Nos. 9000-2012 and 8527-2012]
Decided On : 05-08-2013
For the Appellant :Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Shri Ramesh Sharan Sharma, Advocate for the Vishwavidyalaya
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the University had the statutory authority to fix the number of seats and grant recognition for a specific number of seats under the relevant provisions of the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam.
Headnote:
University Recognition - Admission Limit - Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, Section 24, Clause 8(d), Clause 11(2), Clause 11(7), Clause 13(1), Clause 13(2), Clause 19 - The court upheld the validity of the University's notification fixing the number of seats for a course and granting recognition only for the specified number of seats. It held that the University had the statutory authority to do so under the relevant provisions of the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam.
Fact of the Case:
The society filed a writ petition challenging the University's order imposing a penalty for admitting students beyond the recognized limit. Students also filed petitions seeking the release of their mark sheets. The court heard and decided the matters together.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the University had the authority to fix the number of seats and grant recognition for a specific number of seats under the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam. It upheld the validity of the University's notification and dismissed the petitions, stating that the University's actions were in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the University's notification fixing the admission limit and the imposition of penalties for admitting students beyond the recognized limit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the University had the statutory authority to fix the number of seats and grant recognition for a specific number of seats under the relevant provisions of the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam. It also emphasized that there could be no estoppel against the law and that the University's actions were in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the challenges against the University's notification and the imposition of penalties.
JUDGMENT
Writ Petition No. 8999/2012 is filed by the society challenging the order dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Jiwaji University. By the said order, the University informed the petitioner-institution that for the session 2009-10 the University had granted recognition only for 15 seats in first semester of M.Sc. Microbiology. The institution had admitted 13 more students beyond the permission/recognition granted by the University and, therefore, the University decided to impose Rs. 25000/- penalty per additional student. Lastly, it is stated that Rs. 3,25,000/- be deposited and only after that the mark sheets for those students would be issued.
Writ Petitions No. 9000/2012 and 8527/2012 are filed by the students of Chaudhary Dilip Singh Girls College, Bhind, praying that the University be directed to release the said mark sheets.
Since the questions involved in these petitions are common, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.
2. Brief facts are taken from WP No. 8999/2012.
Petitioner is a registered society. They applied for grant of recognition and affiliation from the Vishwavidyalaya and Higher Education Department. Shri Nakul Khedkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application so submitted by the petitioner, number of students were not mentioned which makes it clear that it was open for the petitioner to admit any number of the students. However, it is stated that the Vishwavidyalaya by notification dated 20.5.2010 (Annexure P/7) committed an error in permitting the petitioner to admit only 15 students in the said subject. The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 6183/2012. However, in the said petition the petitioner did not challenge the notification (Annexure P/7) dated 20.5.2010. Thus, this Court dismissed the petition on 22.11.2012 but gave liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition to assail Annexure P/7. Now, in this case Annexure P/7 is also called in question along with Annexure P/1.
3. Shri Nakul Khedkar further submits that the State Government while giving recognition has not fixed number of seats of the course in question and, therefore, it was not open for the University to confine it to 15 seats. In addition, it is contended that the petitioner had deposited examination fees of all the students who were admitted by the petitioner-Institution and without any objection or demur the University accepted the said fees. Accordingly, the University is estopped and cannot take any objection or action after having taken the fee of all the students unconditionally. He relied on (2013) 5 SCC 470 (Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another) in support of the aforesaid submission.
4. Lastly, it is submitted that as per Statute 27, if the University intended to take any coercive action against the petitioner, it should have followed the principle of natural justice. The impugned order is criticized on yet another ground that there is no enabling provision with the University to impose fine on the Institution or students.
5. No other point is pressed by Shri Nakul Khedkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the University supported the impugned order on the strength of various paragraphs of the return and the Statute 27. In addition, he relied on Section 24(xxv) of the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter called as "Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam") to submit that the University's action is in accordance with law. He submits that the University as per the enabling provision is well within its authority to fix the seats beyond which admissions could not have been granted by the petitioner. Merely because the examination fees is deposited, it will not bestow any right to the petitioner or to the students to treat them admitted beyond the permission granted by notification (Annexure P/7) dated 20.5.2010. As pe
