AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PEON s L N COLLEGE 05 ARTS & COMMERCE * FORT BANGALORE-560002 L E [By M,/s. ASHQK HARANAHALLE A€¥$CrQIATES;'- ADkiOC.'ATES.]"' AND 1 JOINT DIRECTOR or= C0t;L.E'I5IATE;ED"UCATTIQN OFFICE or THE COMMISSIONER-OF'CQLLBEIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BANGALORE--56--Q0(:2 '. 2 THE COMMIESIGETER EG'R.TCT.§'Li§EGIATET EDUCATION PALACE BANGALiDRE--56'Gfl;Q3_ E 'L 3 THE STATE' .VO'FEKARN#J'ATKA._ " REP BY ITS PRINVCIPALESECRETARY DEPT.GFv EDUCATION " . MULTI~?*.sTQRIED BUILEIPJG L T rm AEQBEDKART VEEDHI 'V.BAN'GAL0._RE--'§T;6@O01 " [B'&'--«sE.1 B. MANOHAR, AGA FOR R3] 'THISEWRITT. Pénnou IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND * '223'?'''f_)F» THE cor:s'rrru11o:~a or INDIA PRAYING T0 QUASH THE IMPU€5NEE')E*-..ORDERS DT. 13.10.2007 AND 31.10.2007 VIDE .ANNEX.A;.._AND A1 AND DECLARE THAT RULE 15(1)(f) OF THE "~i(ARNATI-'LKA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (COLLEGIATE EDU'L"ATI€3N) RULES, 2003 AS ULTRA VIRES AND jTjlJ.NC0_NSTI'FU1'I0NAL; DIRECT THE RESFONDENTS TO RELEASE 'SALARY GRANT' PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONERS; GRANT VSTAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDERS ET. 13.10.2007' AND 31.101200? VIDE ANNEXA. MD A]. AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE RESPONDEHTS TO RELEASE THE SALARY GRANT L..:.FE!:'fTI€)NERLS'L 'T TO THE PETITIONERS AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER %oRoEesiioei omecnon AS oeemeo rrr IN THE CIRCU.M;_STAi'~lCE'S--.e'.C>F"TlfiE i CASE; AND ETC. In this petition arguments being neerd, reserved orders, coming on for pronouncemeiitfltiis clay,' the Coulrjtpmefie the following: _ The challenge in this petitionllsl orders dated 13"' October, zaosranoslrsejtoceoer,zoos (Annexure-A and A1 of salary grant. The petitioners have lélsolsgolfiliti ai%e§elaratiohVi that Rule 15(1)(f) of the Karnatakaiz'--EtlecotioVrle'li:V~Institlitions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003'. _(hereina_ti:e.r'.*-- oolletilll i(.£.I.(C.E) Rules, 2083 be ciec;'l'e"re€.l neon stitutiormi " X2.' Tl'_:e..il:3'rief of the case are that the first petitioner :i':"is___a_reeiste'red Trust, which runs the second petitioner 4' .¢'ol'lege. joetihtiloners No.3 to 16 are the members of the teeo_hin_'gxe'nd._Anon-teaching staff of the second petitioner College. oetitloner College was receiving the salary grant. ~ University Grants Commission of India established Netional Assessment and Accreditation Council ['N.A.A.C.' for RBI-1 short] to assess and accredit institutions of hiqher.Vsoocati_oo" the Country. The grading system was as ff'o|to'ws:.V The Grading System Grade Iostitafionaltfiwské : V; (uppertifmifoexclusive) A++ ' , - * tt'sV§)5¥:oooV:' V A* o V9Q@95V'..~,.:". A = 4. ThuAs,.__t"t1e accré&jit;o'd..:imi-ititutions were graded on a nine-point scaisf V'Enstitti'tio:ns, which did not obtain 55% score '9ver.s'tfouEé'ci riot'_.quam'isd for accreditation. 5;_ s*ctcowi:t3§It"ofre§§;from 1* Apra, 2oo7, N.A.A.C. introduced methofiotogy assessment and accreditation. What can be ~ab__out""tshe new methodology is the introduction of gtade point average. It is as fouows: * , : ''Cg(r§uIative b 3.0.: - -4.00 A (Accredited) accomplishment as cxpected of Letter Performance Grade Descriptor Very Good Interpretation of Desciiptor fiigh level of academic an institution 33+! iastitaiien ' Satisfactory an -institution' . er' U"5at'5m°t°'V tho 5 1-50 '3' 4"""' mfn!mum"'!eve! expactee of an 6. As is evident from14'the'ai3ove tebie, the institutions which were ".i%te?e'j?ii>t found fit T0?' accreditation. _ 'V _ 7. Government i_(arn'a.ta!<'a,.__in exercise of its powers conferred by Karnataka Education Act, 1933 ['the said ms irarfianded K.E.I.(C.E) Rules, 2oo3,f Deaiieg withitvhe generaiiiggririitions of grant-in-aid, Rule 9 of _F§ui.:e_*.-r, states that seeking of grant-in-aid is ';a5pejecti"' tot-ci'ue' ifiiifiiiiniient of the infrastructure, etc, as per vjfapipvendix II' fig"./(:i;.h.vE".V'KeE.L(C.E.:) Ruies, 2003 or production of "B'_Grade status accreditation certificate. Further, Rule ,/ K.E.I.(C.E) Rules, 2003 gives the power to the xi"'rjfvstateféovernment to withhold, withdraw or reduce the annual HRH. T Level of __ * T'? "V A ~ 2 01 _ 3 00 B Good accompfishment the K ' ' (Accredited) minimum fave! ex.o'e::'te_d area ' Minimum 1.
51 — 2.90 C.’ (Agcredfted) accompiisbtrrent woof ‘
grants if the institutions fail to provide infrestructur”e.:i’feé’ititVi’es ht
specified In Appendix II to the said Ruleseor tat! f1’te’tsp.fo’dutéVIiiheah
minimum ‘B’ Grade certificate issueéV_b;r_V..N..tt.A.’C. V 1.)(f) vh
of the K.E.I.(C .E.) Rula, 2003_states the efisaiary
grant is subject to every colle9e…éibta§_ni;:;»g:vt’.’¥£s’.’L£2tf’ed»e certificate :3?
assessment and accreditation the peried
specified by the _
8. In Wfit –¥;e’tttieh§s”«M6t.3’tvS?§§’8?”hf 1997, this Ceurt by
its interim or<v£1'e;:"," .2004 directed the State
Getremment ts s'p*ei¢§fy wtthin which the private
edee:et§9na.§':_j';¥nstttvt§oh's',""cteiming or receiving grants, should
prcdttce.138'-V.TGtede«ttie–rt§ficete; the Government was further
:{"di__§e¢ted"te""'exe?r§V§ne.'e1'end pass appropriate orders regarding
_ withthewing or reducing the grant to such of the
I*n_stitt:ti'ons;'«–.whe fail to ccmpty with the requirements of Rule
nthe K.E,I.(C.E.} Rules, 2003. Pursuant to the said
'VVVsfL'inte'fi:'nVV'erder, the State Gevernment issued the Netifieetien,
hhdeted 16"' June, 2004 requiring the coiieges situated in urban
areas to obtain 'a' Grade certificate from &A!A¢fi59 en or befere
R834.
30″‘ Aprii, 2005. Thereefier a show cause netice,__’§2_eteciA_.:’i«;8′”T’
August, 2006 was issued canine open
Cellege end some other Celiegee toehow tteoee asTte_.$oi1y
eatery grant some net be withorexo’r:e».:VV:ee perV”Rr_ute:.V-1.?tnIetVVVthe
KrE.I.(C,,E,) Rules, 2oo3′ ‘fee eetneo%%fmatqoeer rconee
submitted its repiy on 6″‘ vAA–‘.i’V_~g[1fs~ereafter the
Government vide its (Annexurew
A) ordered the obtains ‘B’ Grade
certificate or is earlier. This is in
respect of ee\tierei– the second petitioner
College. E-!oAwexrer, ‘th_e Govererrient reconsidered the issue end
greeted. oo”e.’§re.er’s”t–ti’rne’foreoteinlng ‘E’ Grade certificate. This
. modéfi’ceter.'{er¢ier eéeevipassed on 30″‘ Gctober, 2006 (Annexure
t .. Srieishok Herenahelli, the tearned counsel appearing
tee petititonere urged the feliowieg contentions:
The very grading system by N.A.A.C. has undergone
u a change. ‘B’ Grade in the otd regime does not
correspond itself to any grade in the new system.
HRH.
(19)
(c)
10
As the secend petitioner Coiiege the
infrastructural facilities, as per Ai:4i;ren’dix’:e_IE—-h:
said Rules, the insistence for the’product’iee:4_Vef .
Grade certificate is not iii:.:ie:’;9 and
12(1)(1) of the ahe of the
two conditions be_me_tV._ Eeeiiegffi-rnent is not
justified iii iiieeistiriiigi’ with both the
conditid.ri5..::_””‘..V _ ‘
Sri_,.e.Asi1’oi:e_’H’e;renah’e.l_ii’ ‘aieoVV_.»tompiains af hostiie
ds§c.nmina£idr-i;;riii[jiHerifsubinwsts that there are 349
Goverrmient teiieijeeiifieétiie State. out ef these, 257
Qielivleges héveiiet even appiiw for accreditation from
92 Colleges have obtained
. “.ecr:i*ei§_ivtetii~§)’:i'”by N.A.A.C. Out ef them, 45 coueges
“‘have:A.been given ‘C’ Grade. In support of these
* ieeeubrhiseions, the petitioners have produced the
‘”e>:(tract from N.A.A.C. manuei at Annexure-J.
In View of the change In the rnethedoiogy of grading,
the State Government itself vide its letter, dated 21”
68!!
I
13
only in compliance with the directions issued by this it .,
order, dated 27%»: March, 2004 in writ peijietsons’i%i¢tfl31is:»$5;.g7V _t§f%Afi%”rt
1997. He submitted that the Governmentis dutyfiooviznd
ensure that the aided institutionsiivifeeinteine’
infrastructure and further kee§”‘~upgred.i’nij«._Vttivéir infrvaustrvucture.
No aided institution has anyvfleyestegjiebi’i;oii.,’r:Jemand the
continuation of grant’+ir:f;ia:td a_ If the
Government forrnsigftstitution has vioiated
any condition breach of statutory
provision, it is etvgiays “th:e”4t5overnment to withdraw the
grant. A . L .
“’13,. ;>_t!ianioharV’fufi–he’r eubmits that there is no privity
of coiitraz:_’Vt..§E-overnment and the petitioners No.3 to
Therefore itiannot maintain this petition. It is his
…ernp4het’ic sebrniesivon that by invoking Rule 1S(1)(f) of the
2003, the Government can always stop the
A V
The submissions of the learned counsei have
my anxious consideration. The legal submissions of Sri
FEE!-I.
16
16. Further, this Court in writ petitions i’io.315i’?’€;’-§3′;’::.’..joVf _
1997 has already taken the View that the consequenee’~of’A~~non–it”
production of ‘B’ Grade certificate inciiidefs to’
withdrawal or reduction of grants _oay_ab|e”‘to”‘the .
Judicial discipline requires that the stated” ther’ein:’fhas to
be foilowed. If the petitionersejrgy thewsaid writ
petitions, it is always open to to of the same
by impieading th:eyse_idfi chaiienging it
before the Division ea;-ma V 4. A ”
17. Thevreia afiother.yreason”‘as’Vto why I am negating
the challenge some vaiioitty1d5(1)(n of the said Ruies.
Admittediy, none VVof.VtheVVoetit§.one’rs have filed any objections to
the.«-‘Dra_ft said “R’uies..«For all the aforesaid reasons, I
negaitiyertheictiailenoe’ to the validity of Rule 15(1)(f) of the said
?:”R._t_iies.
yTh.av…A:other contentions raised on behalf of the
;oetitionei’s,_n§erit serious consideration. I notice with concern
349 Government Coiieges, 257 Colleges did not even
.qi’»aVpp-iyifor accreditation from N.A.A.C. The Government’s counter
HRH
17
is silent on this aspect of the matter. Further out of**9–:§§fCo’i*ieg«es ”
which have obtained the accreditation, 45
given ‘C’ Grade. when these are.»the admitted .
considerable force in the submissionsv’vl’ot”:’Sri _i-«’!:araf:rIahaill
that there cannot be double stantiarc¥V: in; of utilisation
of State funds in the field of eduicaitioni been done
amounts to violation_d_i’ to”tVh_e_”Censtit*ution of India.
19. Rule 1(3) Qf’VtF;E:”~KfE-|:V$:’J.(C’L$3) Rules, 2003 states that
the said Rules”the.V§3~overnreeVnt, local authority and
private aided ai’fi’liatedv ‘Government Colleges and
private aided’insttitutionstihavelt diitfferent status, does not mean
thait-‘theA_Ge${ern»ti}ent sheuld…not be concerned with the quality of
education.V”in._i’ts’~r(t’:-ttiivemment) colleges and upgradation of
Zidinfrastructurei th’e%ein’;’vVbut at the same time insist for the
_ ofilthightiiclaéss infrastructure in private aided institutions.
_ .j2’heV””transitlonal problem is aiso required to be
i\i.A.A.C. has switched over from the nine point scale
(.l:ii:?’°’*”””i (ii) A”: (iii) A, (iv) 3″, (V) 8*. (vi) rs, (vii) C”, (vim
(ix) C to the new cumulative grade point average system
fiBl1
18
of (3) A, (ii) 3, (iii) c and (iv), the equisgaience df”the’_’;v:>id: “re? 4 V
Grade is yet to be worked out. The rigcrst-of r$ne’*i.1′
methodology to the other methodeiogy are to vh
N.A.A.C. itself has ciarified that ‘Cf_tmC-rad_e **reeerg;|f;ed as
accredited. This is evident the relevant
portions of which are extracted:ri’i’ereiijebe§,§; it ” it
21. Nobody can the st’ete’rnent~ of Sri Meneher
that the the grant, if the
institution vleietes or contravenes any
provisions cf stetn:t’e.V Bi.;i:’.VA$bi’hiie:.:_}e:r’e’rcising its power, the State
Government jhaspto into accoiint an the reievant factors. No
expvianetightfg fhirthicomingivvttasivto why insistence for obtaining of
‘B’ not being made in respect of 257
v<:3o\rernmen–t__V It cannot be the case of the Government
" 'th–et"««th'e qualityvcef education in Government Coiieges can be low
"«the'que–iity of education has got to be high in aided
in'r;titet_i_er*is. The impugned orders were passed one year three
prior to the ciarificatory communication issued by
sN'."A.A.C. at Annexure-L. In the wake of this subsequent
3:354.
19
development, the petitioners’ cases certainly’
reconsidered.
22. In the result, I aflow this_petitian’*i_n’part V.
the impugned Government orders (An’ne:t:urefA erid’A_}§:(–) infise far
as they pertain to the second the
petitiener No.2 has faiiedto fairness
demands that the the second
petitioner coI!ege’s€.eVesv§ eppropriate orders’
This Court, March, 2004 in writ
petitions No.31zS7§-37′ said the same, which is
as fotiows: V ‘ A V’
” _ V”s”l}pé;-n faHt_::e ovfwény one of the institutions to
V’cdn:;i(yV an requimments of Rule 15(2)(r), me
Gdven2mentV”shaif;;’examine and pass appropriate orders
V mgardfng vwithtédciding, withdrawal or reduction of grants
._’t:r such institutions.”
nonwebtaining ef ‘B’ Grade certificate can net
the mechanica! withdrawat of aid. The Gevernment has
-.__ “:t:§’ettémine how much time has to be given for obtaining the
REM.
20
necessary Grade certificate from N.A.A.C. Ithas to.a–isoffcon.siderf ” f
the position prevaiiing in other colleges.
23. It is made clear that thewquashind-_of
Government orders should not’:’rn_al<e.'rthe'.noetitionersf '!\i'o.:i"v:and 2
complacent in the matter of fcreatifnqifthe:'.:_:ivi1ifrastructure, nor
should the petitioners an-cl are entitled
to grant, whether? necessary Grade
certificate. It is ffféovernment to satisfv itself
that the petitioners' Vi-grovide the infrastructural
facilities specifiedKiri~aAVppenoi§;–or:=of the K.E-.I.(C.E-.) Rules, 2oo3,
anclj' it «is tivi':ei'i~rig.ht and ifoertens duty too of the Government to
insist7et_hetT_th.e"–v.n'ecessary Grade certificate from N.A.A.C. be
:i:ol1tavined..r,_."i"liev_i5oéiernment shall also take into consideration
_ _iillih$tl:i&'r there any relaxation in the matter of fulfillment of
i'n'fra_structureA extended to other institutions. The Government
«Z:'"eha_l_l"'ens"ure uniformity while continuing the grant-in-aid. It is
V'Vf}'e–is9""ooen to the Government to specify the period within which
petitioners No.1 and 2 shall remove the deficiencies and
create the requisite infrastructural facilities.
£3}!
21
24». The Government is directed to: (i) _e’5ce’rteih::t«h_e ”
minimum grade In the new methodology offindieng the4Ain’sti’totitoh=.;eh
fit for accreditation by N.A.A.C.; and (4.i_i) reé:o._ns:der:theAj vta_Vse_Tlofv%
the second petitioner Coflege keepingvjhhhyvf/Eetfv t’h’e..t:_a:vses:vVf§of the
simitariy placed institutions. A > A H
25. The Government N.AA.C. to
ho!d special inspectitotilhe§tdhe tse¢ono couege for the
purpose of finding be awarded the
grade for bei « § v
26. On Ahreconsidehdheo’»tti’erV””eecond fietitionefe case as
deteiied he;§eit1e.E3o\re, atttagts open to the Government to
pas::._Vfteeh’horde?3:.-ittsqrawinhowthe orent–in-aid.
‘Z1’Until«..;su’£:h_”time that the Government pass% the
:fifres.h ordesfon vreflégzslideration of the second petitioner’s case,
~ Ghovernmentshaii keeo reieasing the saiary grant, etc. to the
f,.’¢ftitioeersj3’;3d further to reiease the arrears of salary grants,
2″‘ November, 2007, within an outer fimit of three
V” . _ ‘V eh from today.
AQBK