JUDGMENT
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
1. On 13.4.2001, in L.P.A. No. 349 of 2000, this Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the direction of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to move the State Government for granting affiliation to the commerce faculty of the college. But their Lordships added that the college must move for grant of affiliation before the University concerned with the requisite inspection fee within one month and the University, in its turn, after examining all the pros and cons, must forward its recommendations to the State Government within four months thereafter and the State Government was to take a final decision within two months thereafter. The Contempt of Court case was filed on the allegation that the directions had not been complied with by the respondents, though the college had made the necessary application accompanied by a certified copy of the concerned judgment. Though belatedly, the recognition has not been granted and in that context contempt can be said to arise only because of the delay in dealing with the application made by the college.
2. But during the course of this proceeding, a shocking fact was revealed. It was the fact that the Universities’ in this State are permitting students of unaf-filiated colleges and/or unrecognised courses, to take the examinations conducted by the Universities along with the students of affiliated colleges imparting education in recognised courses. The College of the petitioners was one such. Even according to the petitioners, the commerce faculty of the college did not have an affiliation or recognition. But, it was claimed by the petitioners that their college was admitting students to commerce graduate course and was presenting those students for examinations and they were being permitted to take the examination as if there was no difference between an affiliated college or recognised course and a non-affiliated college or non-recognised course. On this, we thought that the relevant information must be called for from the University. During the course of the arguments, it also transpired that not only the Ranchi University, but also the other universities are following this unauthorised course. Since this was an unheard of or unimaginable situation, we issued notices to Ranchi university to explain to us in what circumstances the students of the college in question were permitted to take the B.Com. Examinations, when the course remained unsanctioned. No satisfactory explanation could be provided by the Ranchi University, except saying that this was going on for some time. But we felt so disturbed that the Universities were acting so irresponsibly that they were not even ensuring that the relevant University laws are implemented properly, that we passed an order directing the Ranchi University, the Vinoba Bhave University and the Siddhu Kanu University and the Vice Chancellors not to permit students of any unaffiliated college or unrecognised course in an affiliated college, to take the university examinations along with the students of recognised courses in an affiliated college. It is now submitted that this direction is being implemented. Only this order has thus brought to an end this unauthorised practice indulged in by the universities and the colleges that were within the jurisdiction of these three universities.
3. It appears to us that the universities are bound to follow the Universities Act, the various Regulations and the Statutes brought out to regulate the colleges, their affiliation to the universities, their recognition and their working. During the course of the arguments, it was submitted that the Ranchi University was a well-known centre for learning. It was also revealed that the petition has now changed and the students coming out of the colleges affiliated to that University are not looked up to elsewhere and are even looked down upon by others and by the other States. One would have thought that those entrusted with the affairs of the universities would realise the importance of keeping up the standards earlier set by the universities in the matter of imparting education. That the persons at the helm seem to have forgotten this and had apparently indulged in encouraging improprieties and had connived at illegalities and irregularities, has really shocked the conscience of this Court. Were the universities selling education or were they regulating the imparting of education in the State and trying to improve the standards of education in the State? None of the universities could give satisfactory answer as to how this shocking state of affairs came into being.
4. The Universities have now informed us that they have now directed to strictly implement the Rules, Regulations and the statutes regarding affiliation of colleges and recognition of courses and they have directed the colleges not to admit students to courses not recognised or approved by the universities and by the Government. One is tempted to thank the universities for small mercies, but we do trust that the universities would at least now recognise the discredit they have brought to themselves and the need to check the lowering of standards of education in this State. That none of the Vice Chancellors even bothered to look into these aspects and take action, corrective action before, is another story.
5. To be a teacher is a sacred mission. Dedication to the cause of education is the hallmark of a teacher. Universities are normally administered by teachers. Teachers, in our perspective, are men of character, honesty, simplicity and dedication. Their mission is to dedicate their lives to brighten the lives of the younger and impressionable generation. Such persons entrusted with the running of the universities should not forget their real roles. They should work for the upliftment of education. We do not want to say anything further on these aspects since we feel that judicial restraint which informs our decisions should make us stop here. But we can only say that whatever we have said was spontaneous, springing out of the shock we suffered on finding the universities permitting students of unrecognised courses and unaffiliated colleges to take the examinations conducted by them and in awarding degrees without heed to laws on the subject and the basic object of bringing into existence such universities and providing for affiliation and recognition.
6. In the circumstances, considering the past conduct of the Universities, we think that the proper course to adopt is to make our direction dated 15.10.2003 as part of this final judgment. We, therefore, direct the Ranchi University, the Vinoba Bhave University and the Siddhu Kanhu University, their Vice Chancellors and their Registrars not to permit students of any unaffiliated college or unrecognised course in any affiliated college to take the university examinations along with the students of recognised courses in affiliated colleges. We also direct the universities and their authorities to strictly implement the University Acts, all the relevant Regulations, Rules and Statutes implicitly and without discrimination and acting independently as universities are expected to do.
7. The Contempt of Court is closed with the above directions. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Chancellor for information and any necessary action he may deem fit.