IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED nus THE 5"" DAY 0? OCTOBER ;>.Q_I.-fit...' ' gt *
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 5. A3DtJi:.jvAzEE1§'
WRIT PETITION N0.26895/guio (EnAf.REG;.:5) B
Between:
Ganga Kaveri Institute of Science Mia.r;étgemen--t§_' C _
{A Group Institution of_Venkata}ak_shmamma'Siubbaiah
Shetty Education & Chari'table[Trus§',fRegd~.v)'_7V~,. , h C
No. 1699, (43/1), of, Raji<u_rrxar"Road,
3"' Stage, Rajajin3gaif;----Bfinga1ore,j;=_56Q 02L} A
Reptd. By TrustCVha£~rn:i,;1n ~
Sri S. Jaggzinath ., ..
S/o late B. Subbaiah Shettyj,' ._ "
Aged about 52 ye;1r_~; V' "
R/0 Bangaiore. Petitioner.
x(§'y.Sri"i\/f:é1di1'usudhan R.Né1'ik, Sr. Adv. for M/s Naik & Naik Law
» FV1'r.m, Advfi, __
Antiu
1 V Uniyefvsityv of Bangalore,
» Jnana.Bharathi (City Campus),
, AA Cent1'al College, Bangalore ---- 9,
A' *Re_ptd. By its Registrar.
ORDER
The petitioner is an educational institution v_u’~i;npar’ting 0
education in different disciplines such as i{3.Sc._’in «Bio-“Fechno1.ogy,i.,__Tf
Biochemistry, Microbiology, Ge:n_etics,i’– pComputer~i1TScience, 3
}ourna1ism, Business Management, several giaduate
courses in different discipiinejsflt is Jtiie petitioner that it
had made an application to for grant of
affiliation to two ipcoiirpsesp, International
Business Abcounting (MFA) and
for renewa£_Aof_ accordance with Section 59 of
the Karnataka’St_ate_Uniye1’s.ities”_;Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act’). It
_ is conteiipdedstmat the”a..pplication was placed before the Syndicate,
Win .accordance,%w,ith. sub–c}ause (6) of Section 59, which in turn
to be made by the Local Enquiry
Committee (i’,or’short ‘LIC’). In furtherance thereof, the LlC carried
“the,_inspection and submitted its report to the Academic
.C.oui.;’.cil.”‘l’aking note of the LIC report and the opinion of the other
e.
autho1’it.ies of the University, the State Government proceeded to
make recommendation for grant of affiliation by an order Vdatedpu
18.3.2010 (Annexure–B) to the two courses of M18 and _
an intake of 60 in each of the discip1.ines. On receipt-»o.f:t.he”~e:ai<d
order from the Government, the petitioneriawaitgd for time for ;y A
the University to grant affiliation, but, -,i._1_i the fabgieiice of
communication in terms of sub–sectiorfi'('l.x2:) itvfimade
a representation on ~–Unfi'yer§ity to grant an
order of affiliation. Since ivyrefepond to the
said request, it hag mafidamus directing
the Univereity ./to grant:':the'formal order of affiliation in
accordance Wi"th_ of Section 59 by taking into
_Vconside,ra5:tiont'~the directions issued by the State Government under
its .con1mun_ica1:f1on"'a.t__Annexure 'B' and to include the petitioner-
institutione' neiyj–Qot;r$;es of MIB and MFA in the 'seat matrix' and
counsel adinihsaiion for the Academic Year ZOIO-I I.
it
e"
2. The first respondent–University} ha$.,.fiiled”‘.i{s’:’_obj_ec*tio.ni$i__0 f
contending that the college had i.an_bmitted._ its applicaptivoni for 0
renewal of affiliation along with for new
courses including MFA for though the
University had not issued a for the
new courses for inspected the
college on recommending for
the 1*enewal.ii courses, but had not
recommended for MFA. the academic year 2005-06, the
college sjubmittediits: haipplicavtion for renewal of affiliation and for
MFA. The LIC had visited the college on
1¢5L’?.i2’0’05p0A its report rejecting the application for
0 affili.ati”on for {he«:MFA course. For the academic year 2006-07, the
0′ .had noltrrecommended for affiliation to the new courses. As
i’§u’ctzt._ the~’Academic Council and the Syndicate did not recommend
‘%n,:«;-~”””~w»
for the said course. However, the State Government on the basis of
a letter addressed by the Chairman of the
recommended for affiliation to the course by its the
order dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure
correspondence, the State Governinentby its”l.ette.r datedi-3} .0
suggested the University to reject thiei’tvteq11est ‘college for
affiliation of new courses course for the
academic year 2009-2010 academic
years 2007»~08. 20Qa;c§.i:ana.v2–Q09;to, not apply for
grant of att’itiatio:a inlaid Ltc while considering
the applica’:i0n._of theCi:-I1egel’or:irenewal of affiliation for 200940
without there being clairn~t lj’ol;ihe said courses has surprisingly
vrecomineinded. for the ..affiliat%.0n of the new course including the
Academic Council and the Syndicate have
resolve’d._not”toi’_”gran;t’affiliation to the courses not applied for and
the said” decision was corninunicated to the Government on
“hie Government by its letter dated 22.9.2009 has once
agairt-recommended for grant of affiliation to the said course. The
it
{
University sent a letter to the Government dated 9.2.2009
informing its inability to comply with the same. When
stood thus, the Government has recommended to grant”stffilia’tion
gm_
for M113 and MFA courses for the acadeinicyear 20_t0¥’l$I’.’:
3. Sri Madusudhan R. Naikt iearned’
appearing for the petitioner wouid that iiietijtioner had
made application for extensiognfof existinigicourses
and for grant of affiliation to. Master of
International ‘(It/IVL3) hand 4_4Master””‘of Finance and
Accounting 59 of the Act for the academic
year 2009-10. _The ” “gaiaced before the Syndicate in
accordance. with’su;5;’section.”(6)”of Section 59 of the Act, which in
trim Adi’rected*the..Iocal to be made by the LEC. The LIC
carrie.:i_e.oiu’t ..the.i.i’nspec.tion and submitted the report for renewal of
it affi1.iati’0.n for thdexisting and also for grant of affiiiation for the
” «iifjgfiadditioynal iicoiirses sought for the academic year 2009-10. After
“corisiidering the report of the LIC, the Academic Councii and the
it
Syndicate recorded their opinion. The Registrar of the Univ,ersi_ty.e_
submitted the application, the report of the MC, the proceédin.gs..oii .1. ‘
the Academic Council. and the Syndicate to the State..,Cii:(rvei’iirire_nt
for taking a decision thereon. The State:”Goveriime.i_1t -dire_cte:d_the
University to accord affiliation to the tvvo t’vlIB
MFA with an intake of 60 each as p-‘e._r’:–he order at Ann’e;XnV:ev«*vBV7V.
the light of the said order, the Univers_i_ty’»h_ass.no other option but to
issue a formal order of ElffiiiEt[i0′;1’uI’ldCii:_SlJ5*vSé€tiCv~!1b (12) of Section
59. Learned Senior Coiinsel’_ zhasy ifurtherii.’s:ii)mitted that
‘Government R.C_… C0_ll”_ege’ §alor2e_5.ivas.einei_uded fin the seat matrix
for the courses ‘i’ts;1’is.t_heiacademic’ year 2009-10. However, many
other coliegeshatve beeni”i.ncluded in the seat matrix for academic
year 201 Olri. Therefore, the University ought to have included the
peiti’t§o_,ner vtheiseat matrix for the academic year 2010} 1.
hand, Sri M..Keshava Reddy, learned
0 it ‘Counsel aPi)car’irig for the University submits that the petitioner is
0 entitledtor grant of affiliation to the courses in question for the
academic year 20l0-1l. It argued that for the atraclernic
2004-05. the petitioner had applied for grant of affiliation~~t.o_jhll_lf’;§1 if
course though the University has not issued a notificatv_ion inyiting
the application for the new courses. l;Th€_”UIlvl’\l€:I’Sil’y
recommend for grant of affiliation to {he new icottrsesfor. the said
year. For the academic year 2005–0d;>.t::.l_ie college-.haci’appliedHfor
grant of affiliation to
submitted a report rejecting ltiliiigvgvipetitioner. The
report was the Syndicate.
For the acadernic éooaroa and 2009-10,
the petitioner grant of affiliation to the new
courses. Howeyer, for iithe~’academ.ic year 2006-07, the State
_ Govern.t_neintzon theibasis of the letter addressed by the Chairman of
in college; l:at1yreco_mm.ended for affiliation to MFA Course by its
orderfidateid After some correspondence, the State
–Governifnen’tiAsent:a letter dated 3.1.8.2009 suggesting the University
itoxreject. the request of the college for grant of affiliation to new
“for the academic year 2009-10. While considering the
E
at
10
application of the college for renewal of affiliation for 2009-l_0,tlieii~.._
LIC has surprisingly recommended for affiliation of new:_c()’urs.eQ’s,« *’
which was not at all applied for by the college. The’
Council and the Syndicate have resolved not tcrgrant’a.ffi’lia”tion 76′
the course not applied for and the said’decision-
to the Government on 29.6.2Q09. the
Government has reviewed vviddatef3.1.8.2009 and
recommended for grantof afl’i:li’ati’on:’1fovr’the_lvllB ll./[FA courses
by its order dated. 2010-11 even
though the He prays for
dismissal ofthe. writ pvctiitiom
5. Havin_gi1=egard to” £115: ueontentioiis urged, the question for
co11siderajtionr..is whe:h_erVthe petitioner is entitled for grant of an
a.ff;iliatEfoi1…_for M113 and MFA courses for the academic
my K”
11
6. It is evident from the materials on record_.–t_halt”‘ –1-
petitioner had sought for grant of at’t’iliationytoV MFA eoi1’r’:-;el’_:”or”t.he* _
academic year 2004-05. The application r¢t;j’eict’ed’eeby’-tlhe 5: ‘A
the Academic Council and the Syndicate. Forthe acaGe.mi.ci-years
2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and college’ apply
for grant of affiliation to MIB on the
basis of a letter ofst.he- the State
Government granytecl an intake of
60, which * when the University
brought toll’-.the« Government that it is not
permissible in lavvlfor granltof aliit.%’l.iatjon, the State Government by
ordeiiatiA’Anneitu1°e._fR’20’ dated 31.8.2010 suggested the
l”Lin’ivers;i.ty to ‘re_i’eC,t”‘tl’_i_e application for the academic year 2009-£0.
The said’-order .is”rjatsE:1nder:
% fie %%=%?%éf€:23m
:’2$~/0—v mozgé £35
12
” –2:1:sxa/5&4 fééad
§o 32$ /4.6/,L.C;x:i.k>i3;f);.o’2.z:”r ;
%
§mzr’;:g€% s$¢arcr’:::{ §i>:§::;e>c>:’o,
,1 ‘1–“J’t’7:>::..:~;.,2e;»e;£»/”ng 532,g,A=i,
9.<:%'"s</'xL3.,ci2, :'SEs;3)c:»5: ;5VjI'Q8.51ogC)_
fififfid 5)0m;n::::52",
i%?2:;a§ CW'§z3*§§;,a3")J
s}v-<'H;;g§§,,<g§\,»~5_t"5000!.
QSM:
5i3e)§9§~:’¥’5b:
§\%}g{\gJ1(§-J I555§”%£§Q>”Oaj}’
‘);5;6’kgw\Ci’U’ ‘$0 055.
_g5g3’1,z);§,a; §oc>’Mo;:S’e s2:5}e9,»? e(*3§,_€?,”$2. :nem_»v–%8};:€g.£> €9,<§%wLi%(&f 3&9
5533 Cwé ~"~'-0 '.§1C-7'rg5§*13'§~=§'€'€.. v%}7¢':"~.éJ'¢'5.§v3_?§5'V§"$ °;5;o<::3nc.1–3:i3.,
Q./\7=1(;"jj;2;’ 6;,,%;;e;3e;,VV/;2aga;xa, £3570 sf cg :7: 4 019 me.
D ‘1§°fiE/>9«’~»’ ‘?’9..?i>’4%%._%3″.:§€f:\”” £5253, Coon’ S%»..§<.1z'£ise'{%;s:~s’::;\1§.,t;;:*ou” 9.r.:.£»:?:’§ s:’:o_§;D ae.zg§.a-
Sim figff €355 “:’_55 3″#’:h; ‘ ~fEE1d€_¢bJz”F»g,?i»o4 960$ ESEJJ q£oo_-‘.i»~<=22£m?\
¢%2g_,s%§) @:2£:~a:s;~:é;_,5V_ .?is9'3f.C9';5%%@o:2§ .’:3’3«’3é’ gfifimd
(;,);§«%aA»&,%;»,»g,;=A,gV%£*_[§»,;(;:}%4;»;;;:g ;$}”fi’3m;5_:f;’j5;?J;}7$ €cga€)d.:5::\£_ szsmmja, afleagnaa Yiofij»
535~Ir)¥(¢’5t”‘f.:’i)§_s’.’-S,;$ Lfpt”33_;zg.’f>,:9’cax’§u;12X’
k«3i€T$;&e%%aw§oé %%a&:g\)X .s9g;v§$e,w ,9£ze«sg,:me,.g,
Q
,5) 3}’?-«g’-t-j:\.)’) Z3€hCb.?3»*Z5«r)g’;é§c’ ,@’jf$ §2o;£cé’–11€e€pfie;€ wsfifié
%i:5;F)’fi @7€30$L§’c»?€
my/..
‘ fcsgf-.,z,m.s>_ eoggg”)
?’5’~5)e’2’!1: 39902:? (;9:gi3m35e9a1Mg2>,”
31%
13
7. While considering t.he application of the petiti_o’:ner–«it_orj:F :_. ‘
renewal of affiliation for the academic year 2009-l0_wi*thot;t thereh
being any claim for M18 and MFA courses;.1’the_-LIAC ;, at
for affiliation to the courses as per
of 60 in each of the courses. Howeveritheifacadeniic and
the Syndicate did not recom1nend.”l’or’l.sgra;n’t:;io’l”atliiliation to the said
courses which is clear. fromithevihreport ‘R22’. The
State Governmenthy 18.3.2010 has
directed the aforesaid two
courses the 1. it is clear from the
notification lSSl;i€j_dby the under Section 59(2) of the Act
4_ .. dated l,7§i{9i.u2009 (Ari’n’e2<inre«I'{:l) that it has not invited applications
"for grant of afiilyiation to the aforesaid course for the academic
'fhough the learned Senior Counsei for the
gietitioner contends that petitioner has made an application for grant
oj9.,afi'i1i-ationiiifor the academic year 2009-E0, the original records
by the University wgid clearly show that no such
fig
14
application was filed by the college nor has it depositedr.._the_V
affiliation fee.
8. As directed by me, learned HCGP apgfaeariiigy the if
second respondent has produced the file trelatindgy to’gra’1i1i:».,,c,9l’tV:.it.d
affiliation to the aforesaid two courses. Th’e._file cor».£ai1aVsVya_ letter i
dated 5.9.2009 sent by the Cltairmaifoi’ the col’lcgeto the then
Minister for Higher Educati–onfreq’§ies:_in.g”him to _ grant affiliation
for the academic year 2OO9–Alt(}.dYVet a–nothe’rd”ietterC_was sent by the
Chairman requesting tithe. then Secreta.-fyforulfigher Education for
grant of :aft’iliyation “tt:”the’raforesaiyd’courses w.e.f. 2010-ll instead
of 2009~lOt “Et4_’isl thus order of affiliation has been
granteofgxyithcout Vany ._applica’;ion for the academic year 2010-11. In
in year 2009-10 is concerned, it is clear that the
any application nor has it deposited the
if _ aiftliattonffhe State Government had already rejected the
H of°the petitioner for grant of affiliation as per the order
3l..8.2009 for the said academic year. In order to clarify the
E
gilt
4.
15
position, this Court sought for an explanation in this regard.
the present Secretary for Higher Education. He ha_s:”fileCi
affidavit dated 20.9.2010 stating that he
irregularities in issuing the order and that heAAvyi.ll”recons-ide’r :;i__1_e=:;s
matter strictly in accordance with law andxvill take” fnec_essai’y 0
corrective measures. The affidavit is as “under:
“I, 1\é..Mad*1n*** I’i..}§:,S0.-:§””Q” ‘é/o Sri
Venkatachari,i’paged about; ‘working as
Principaléil 0toffiiovtdiEdiication Department
lVl.S.0’B’il(1g;;,,,5’angalore, do hereby
solemnly affivrrn-“o.n’oath as follows:
am presently working as
_P’rine.ipal Secretary to Govt, Education Department
Eéducativohj, as such, I am fully conversant
V ” of the case and I am swearing to this
0 “‘ai’f’idavift;
2.40.01 submit that, after thorough verification of
0 as therecords pertaining to this case, it has been noticed
is
16
that there are some irregularities in passing thewlt
impugned order. I submit that the matter will V
reconsidered once again strictly under the provisions
of Section 59 of the Karnataka Universities i«;c’i;’2’otio ”
and necessary corrective measureslyvillt-Abeitaken and
the matter will be set right in compliance wiptnhfithe l’
provisions of Section 59 in acccsrdanc-e with..law.,_
What is statedizibove isi’trti’et.:to the best of”r’r1’y
knowledge, info1’rnationl”ahd-beli_eVl€.’fv V l l
9. A University– is a corporation .o’f_teac_hers’.v or assemblage
of learnedlnien”oAr:9v?gvolll§:ges higher branches of
learning. established to hold the
exarnination, gr”ztnt_lanVc”1*. confer degrees, diplomas and other
d’ivs.tinc’ti.olns&_\’..tandup also l{o””adrnit educational institutions, not
rr.ain’tainet<lVh}{ it totvt.i_ts_.;)rivileges as affiliated colleges. The various
powers._of the University are enumerated in section 4 of the Act.
-‘«._Affi1iation oflithe college is essential for the purpose of attaching an
etiticatioiial institution to such University within jurisdiction as
\»
¢
17
directed by law. I_t is generally sought for from the Universi»t__y’1_
before it starts functioning. The expression ‘affiliation’ , i’
been defined in the Act. Sub–section (1)(a) of Section l2}_A of-the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956_.de§ines
‘affiliation’ as under:
” ‘affiliation’, together with itsA,gra._nivma’t–ical var.iation.s,’:
includes in relation to.col1ege;{_’reeogiiitioh of such
college by, association ofsuch e_ollege”‘~by’,’association
of such co11ege’wii_”t–h, and college to
99 3 ‘i
the privileges ‘Q niV*eir5_i’t3:,
l0. :Chapter.X”iof’-the for affiliation of colleges
and recognitio’n,__of Vvinistitiitiioiisiifi-The relevant provisions for the
,pnrpose«.lj)fithis case’ai’e,si_2_h-«Sections (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (9), (10)
fraynd it?) vOf.i_S6Clit):rl”59, which are as under:
.._rSec.59:.,.vAffi~!iation of Colleges: (1) Colleges within
” the Universitly area shall on satisfying the conditions
sfjeciifiediin this Section be affiliated to the University
19
financially viable to run the Colleges without the aid
the State Government.
(5) The application shall further conta.in””~._:z1n’
undertaking that after the college vis””af–fi.Eiateud,
shall not be any transfer of managernent’_’orfchénge~
name and style of the college,’ without .pri’or appr(w;aIV’_
of the State Government and the”UuniversityL”
(6) On receipt of applicati_on L’-:;n_bo–ise.ction
shall be placed before the Syndicfite’ for ‘c.onsideration.
The Syndicate_r’0_n co’ns§i’d’e’rfa!ion..’:’e. of C’ of the
applications for :%:1ffit§i:1Vti’0n 1: shell direct’ CV21″ ‘local inquiry
to be made iocalé irrqviiiry committee:
7Pro–vided_bE’i1erLocal Inquiry Committee
shall con$lsts’vof a.tlea,st”ene person belonging to the
Scheduled Cnsteeor the Scheduled Tribes.
A (7) 2,;-exxxxx “”x’xxxx xxxxx
‘n{8) _ X.X.’~(4XX._V xxxxx xxxxx
Tine”‘v’vS_yni;’Iic.ate shall consider the report of the
€.omnzitteei’.vand the resoluiihfi of the Academic Council
20
and shall further record its opinion on the questiorig. T
whether the request shall be granted either in whole;”or«.[j~.._i’ » l
in part or rejected. after making such further enquilryuas i”
may be deemed necessary.
(10) The Registrar shall submit the aptp1:ie_atit)n its. «.
enclosures, Annexures, the ret5o_r’t’-.<)V_f'thelocal_ir1t;t1iry""*
Committee, the Academic Ct)unic'i'i.;:artr1' the lsyzhdiczitefi
and after such enquiryvajs may t:oi'be necessary
make their recornmendaitieon it-to?' :the__: to
affiiiate or rejeet' ;t_i'fi1i2;.tio'ii' the ifrtayfi or any
part thereof_7§r1ci;ading.vthe yariationfinlltliel 'ifitake.
(11): — f xxxxx
(12) The.tJ1iiversity"E:ha.l]. "or; receipt of the directions of
the .. State" GrivV'ern.menTt, issue formal order
" « ….. .. Q
" A provisions would clearly indicate that the
Collegesxwithin the University area shall be affiliated to the
'U.r1i»versii't_y' as affiliated colleges oi'\§1e University on satisfying the
21
conditions mentioned in Section 59 of the Act. Sulysection (2) of
Section 59 states that the Registrar shall notify atieast
leading newspapers one in English and one in ‘V’ V
applications for affiliation of new courses in .the__exis_*.in”g’
colleges, new subjects in the affiliated colle.ges1’_anti aili”s:)1i”i
in the sanctioned intake fixing t1ie_v'”ia.st date for
applications. The colleges have to s_e.nd”~.thex,_Vappiica«tion the
Registrar within the time iirnitigsipecifiecf. iinithel advertisement
furnishing the informati_on i1nde_r s’ubgseiction (3) of
Section 59 of the«’Act,_ .Si_i.b1_-sectioni’ (.6) of Section 59 states that on
receipt of the appiicatioryit’placed before the Syndicate for
consideration. The Vsyindicatet’ consideration of each of the
..gpplicatie1niv for affililati-on__shali direct the iocai inquiry to be tnade
Sis.-y LIC…Tl:e ‘A;c’avd_e1nic Council after receipt of the report of the
LI.C,’*t;o’ns’ider’ finding of the committee envisaged in the report
and make such thurther enquiry may appear it to be necessary and
I 1’ecord’ii’t«s opinion on such request and transmit it to the Syndicate.
“w~..p_”‘i”*hefeafter, the Syndicate has to consider the report of the
it
\
22
committee and resolution of the Academic Council and record its
opinion on the question whether the request shall be granted either
in whole or in part or rejected. The Registrar has to subrrlit
application and its enclosures, Annexures, the report of LlCeVa’nd” r ii
the proceedings of the Academic Councilv-andthe S~yndti.cate’ytoiithe’lv
State Government for takin a decision thereon iEaefore’3il”*i
g _ _ _ _
of the ensuing year. The language ernployed sub;s.¢;ct’iofi’.{:l0)”of
Section 59 makes it clear that the State’Go<.Ier11ment shall consider
such applications in the light of the irecori1mendat.ior:s of the LIC,
the Academic Counciliand the Synd.ica.te"a°n–d_ afte'r such enquiry as
may appear it to he "inec-eAss3ry';.niake their recommendation to the
University to atfilitate or_reject affiliation as the case may be or
_ any part inclu'di.ng the variation in the intake. On receipt of
7the, directions~.ot7.tih'e,State Government, the University has to issue
theiforma! orde_r<. accordingly.
29$”
23
12. It is thus clear that the institutions concerned.§h”aVew.lto–.: -1- i
apply for grant of affiliation in response to theb’notifi.eatio–n:13}/il’th¢’–_
Re istrar of t.he Universit under submsectioen Section”’59”?i’§.._
E Y i 1 _ _ _ _
the Act. After compliance of theilptocedure-.. i;i1escrihed..;vunders
various sub–sect.ions of Section 59, hasto the
report to the State Governrneiitdor before 315′
March of the ensuing. year :arid:..the A has t.o
consider only liithieirecommendations
of the authorities clveiarlifrom the scheme of
the Act thaitflif an of affiliation is made for the
academic session “2009′-_l(l)l,: tl”:eli”_State Government cannot grant
_.fresh affiliation for the..next academic year. Needless to say that
‘without 2 n;.atk1’ng*«.Vati. application for grant of affiliation for a
particular’yearll–‘Vthe”SVtate Government cannot direct the University
to grant 5 forrnalorder of affiliation.
ll
25
of course nor is it a formality. Admission to the privileges of a
University is a power to be exercised with great care keeping —in
view the interest of the students. When the law
procedure for grant of affiliation, it must he done only iin-thafl
manner. Statutes have been made by th-e”‘U1iiversity_:.regij.lating? in
grant of affiliation. The guidelines issued thezUnive;isity».staties if
that the exercise of affiliation shall atleast .nin.e_”gn1oi<3thsiiiin
advance and get completed atleast two"rr1onths–.before'admissions
are made in the college. The object ofvtiie local .A7enciu~jry is to find
out if the coliegepossessesfi req11ired-..Vin'frastriicture to start the
course. Affi_liat.ion .car,n:e.t_ibe on the basis of the letters of
the Chairman the c'olle'ge" tofthe concerned Minister and the
Secretary: i'or'~Higher "EdiuVcatir)n, without inaking an application to
"the Unive1s.ity«.iti«accordance with iaw. The Act has not conferred
upon'~thc–.State Govegrninent inherent powers to direct the University
to issue ofafifiliation to the colleges. It has to function within
powers and duties assigned to it under the Act. In the
'eia*cu'ii1stances, the Principal Secretary to the Government,
is
I.
26
Education Department (Higher Education), is right in stating that
he has noticed irregularities in passing the impugned order. in
background, the University has taken a correct
petitioner is not entitled for grant of an ord_er..of__afi’ili–ation’.–.l . l’
14. The other submission of the learned_HS’enior Cowasei, ifollrflg g
the petitioner that though the _U_nivers’i.gyl’*..has gneasvilnvited 3
applications for grant of affiliation fofthe’courses~inl’qaestion, the
University has included SCV6r%1l”vQ{lle.t’lliI1$tiE’E.l.{_l(?Itl’S’-1l.I1 seat matrix for
the academic year 2010- ll and ..,ti1a_t ithe=”~peti~ltion5er has been
discriminated i_s’\v,ithVotIt._a’ny ‘meri’t.. ‘For the academic year 2009»
10, Governme’nt__RtC_College, ‘Bai_tgalore, was granted affiliation for
_ the af’oresaid.two courses, which is clear from the seat matrix of
I~Iowever,~–several other institutions have been included in
the though the University has not invited
applicatioti for grant of affi1.iation. It is Well established that if the
lljaivei’s–i.t&y has granted affiliation to some other educational
illegally for the academic year 20l0–lI, this Court
t
it
27
cannot direct the University to grant affiliation to the petitio11er;ti._lt’»r.
is settled that a party cannot claim that since some thing _,_ A’ »
been done in another case, direction should be given. doing
another wrong. No one has a right to cvlaiin-perlforniance. offan f
unlawful or illegal act. The jurisdiction under
intended to perpetuate illegalities but at 1
OF INDIA & ANOTHERV TieaD1NG
C0. & ANOTHER ..g(2o03):a5–s.cc& 43i2,ctom has held
that two wro11g.s4..cio claim that
since another case; direction
should beigiven’ .wrong. In such matters, there is
no discrimination’ invo’l.vedt Tloieconcept of equal treatment on the
._logic Article i’4’~.of the Constitution cannot be pressed into
i’x_serViee_ in suc.h”~cases. What the concept of equal treatment
presupposes’ ii’9>”t6V)§:i§ilt€11C€ of similar legal foothold. it does not
‘ocouiitenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a
ifpar. ‘Even hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been
“«~’coi’amitted in some other cases by introducing a concept of
F»
‘ !
3
tylg’
28
negative equality, the respondents cannot strengthen their c;;1s:_:_.”‘*,
They have to establish the strength of their case on soraf1’e”‘other:
basis and not by claiming negative equality.
15. The Registrar of the University’;
dated 24.9.2010 stating that affiliation cannot’-.be to
petitioner as it has not applied for al’filiation to the”sai’dA
the academic year 2009-l0 arid~~.the oifered
for the academic year 2010–lli that it has
come to the notice*’o’f’«y:.the Un.iver’eity “that-i_cer_taifn colleges were
given affiliation f:)ritl’£e, saiidicoa._rsevs__for-the academic year 201041,
and that the ‘*;l}nivers’ity”‘.§vi..Jth’eXamine each and every case
_Vindividually and actionuvvill be initiated against such colleges in
A’accordance_vvi.tn,law, if the grant of affiliation is not in conformity
with/theyproviisi_o;1g~1;jf’.Section 59 of the Act. The stand taken by
the Univ”ersi’ty isjust and fair.
K3″
1
29
16. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordirig’.yi._V
dismissed. No costs.
S i
BMM /-