JUDGMENT
G.B. Patnaik, J.
1. Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya, its Principal and nine students of the College are the petitioners seeking a direction from this Court to the effect that the opposite parties should permit the students to appear at the B.Sc. Examination as regular students from the College. The necessity for filing this writ petition was on account of the fact that the University to whom the institution wanted to be affiliated passed an order on 3-2-1983 permitting the institution for opening B Sc. Classes during the academic session 1984-85 and thereafter not allowing the students even to appear as private candidates as per a decision of the Syndicate (vide Annexure-5), as a result of which these students who took admission in the B.Sc. Class during the academic session 1982-83 and completed the course and were scheduled to appear at the annual examination held during the month of May 1984 could not appear at the said examination. This writ petition was filed on 19-4-84, a few days prior to the commencement of the annual B.Sc. Examination in May, 1984, and was listed for admission on 27-4-1984. Realising the urgency of the matter and also that no order can be passed without hearing the university, the matter was directed to be listed for service of notice through special messenger and when the matter was called on 30th of April 1984, after service of notice, the University entered appearance through counsel, but the learned counsel wanted some time on that date and on 1-5-1984, this Court issued notice of admission and hearing and the learned counsel for the University agreed that the matter should be taken up on 8-5-1984 so that if possible appropriate directions could be given to the University to allow the students to appear at the examination. The matter was heard on 8-5-1984 and also on 9-5-1984, but it was not possible for the Court to give any interim direction nor the Court could dispose of the matter and, therefore, on 10-5-1984 it was ordered that the matter be listed immediately after the reopening of the Court after long vacation. In the meantime, the annual examination of the Utkal University for B.Sc. was held in May, 1984 and the students-petitioners could not appear for the said examinatioa
2. According to the petitioners’ case, the institution has been duly affiliated to the Utkal University to present candidates for B.Sc. Classes since 1981 and students from the said institution have been appearing at the I.Sc. Examination of the Utkal University. Thereafter, the State Government concurred to the opening of Degree Classes in Science in the said institution in Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology and Mathematics and permitted the institution to admit students for the academic sessions 1981-82 and 1982-83 subject to grant of affiliation by the Utkal University, as would appear from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Subsequently, by Government letter dated 9-11-192 (Annexure-2), the concurrence was extended for the academic years 1982-83 and 1983-84 on fulfilling certain conditions. It is the petitioners’ case that all the conditions precedents contained in the Government letter have been fulfilled so far as the particular institution (petitioner No. 1) is concerned It is the further case of the petitioners that a local enquiry was conducted on 18-12-1982 by two experts of the University and they recommended that the affiliation of the institution should be granted. This recommendation of the Experts is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Under the Rules and the University Regulation, the Senate of the University grants affiliation on the recommendation of the Syndicate provided prior concurrence of the State Government is obtained The Director of College Development Council issued a notification dated 3-2-1983 wherein it has been stated : –
NOTIFICATION
No. AFE/ A-866/83
Dated 3-2-83
In accordance with provision made under rule 189 of the University Statute 1966, the Senate, Utkal University, on the recommendation of the Syndicate have been pleased to admit the following Colleges for opening courses as stated against each for the session 1982-83 subject to fulfilment of conditions laid down by the University Inspectors in their report (copy enclosed), appointment of additional teaching staff and other conditions as prescribed by the University from time to time.
Name of the Colleges
Opening of
1 to 3 P.G. Stage:
………………….
4 to 6 Degree Stage
………………….
7. Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya.
B. Sc. with 80 seats during the Session 1984-85
8 to 28…..
………………….
By Order
Sd Illegible
2-2-83
Director, College Development Council
It is the case of the petitioners that though in the notification it has been clearly stated that the University was pleased to allow for opening of B.Sc. Course for the session 1982-83, but while indicating the number of seats against the petitioner-institution, namely Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya, it was by mistake indicated “during the session 1984-85” and, therefore, the institution was prevented to present its candidates for B.Sc. Examination though students had duly taken admission during the academic session 1982-83 and had completed their two-year course in the institution. Finding no other alternative, the students of the institution wanted permission to appear at least as private candidates, but that prayer was also rejected by the University by letter dated 11-4-1984 (Annexure-5) and hence the present writ petition.
Thus the main contention of the petitioners is that though the State Government has duly concurred to the opening of the Degree classes in Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya for the academic sessions 1981-82 and 1982-83 and though the Inspectors of the University have recommended for affiliation of the institution and though, in fact, the students have been admitted in the B.Sc. class during the academic session 1982-83 and have completed their course of two years, yet the University is illegally preventing them from taking the annual examination which, according to the petitioners, is on account of some typographical error in the notification dated 3-2-1983.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the University, the stand taken is that since the College has not been admitted to the privileges of the University for imparting instructions or for presenting candidates in B.Sc. examination, the Syndicate passed a resolution not to admit the private candidates. It is further averred that according to the practice, the university grants affiliation to an institution in the B.Sc. Course after lapse of three years in the minimum of the first batch of candidates for I.Sc. examination and since the College (Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya) presented candidates for the annual examination of 1982, affiliation was rightly granted to the said institution for B. Sc. from the year 1984-85 and thus there is no mistake in Annexure-4 as contended in the writ petition and this, according to the University, is a wholesome principle for achieving better standard in education
4. There cannot be any manner of doubt that it is entirely within the province and competence of the University with the expert advice of the Senate and the Syndicate to lay down standard and pre-conditions for granting affiliation to any particular institution for different courses in the University and, therefore, in the very nature of things, it would not be conducive for a court of law to venture into such exclusive thickets to find out whether those standards laid down by the University are good or bad The Court’s duty, however, lies in preventing arbitrariness and whimsical actions of the educational authorities not backed by any statutory provision.
5. It is quite clear from the averments made in the writ petition as well as from the documents annexed thereto that the Government accorded concurrence for opening B. Sc. Classes in Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics. Botany and Zoology for the sessions 1981-82 and 1982-83 subject to grant of affiliation by the University and also subject to some pre-conditions to be fulfilled by the institution with regard to making provision for educational facilities. In fact, there is no dispute that petitioners 3 to 11 did take their admission in the College during the academic session 1982-83. The Committee of Inspectors — a body of two experts sent by the University, did conduct an enquiry and on being satisfied about the educational facilities in the institution and its suitability for presenting candidates at the examination of the University, did recommend that affiliation should be granted. Thereafter the notification of the University dated 3-2-1983 (Annexure-4) emanated In the said notification, as we find, it has been clearly stated that the University has been “pleased to admit the following colleges for opening cou rses as stated against each for the session 1982-83…..”. But in the schedule at serial No. 7against Subarnarekha Mahvidyalaya, it was stated that “B.Sc with 80 seats during the sessions 1984-85.” The stand of the University in the counter-affidavit is that in accordance with the normal practice since Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya presented I.Sc candidates in the year 1981-82, after lapse of three years, the University has permitted affiliation for B. Sc. during the session 1984-85. To our query, in support of this practice, no statutory provision has been pointed out, nor recourse to any such provision has been taken in the counter-affidavit. That apart, the stand of the University that the College in question presented candidates for I.Sc. examination for the first time in 1982 is belied by the document (Annexure-6) which is the Result Sheet of Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya in I.Sc. from 1981 to 1983 and shows that the institution presented its candidates in I.Sc. examination of 1981 and this fact has not been controverted either by filing any further affidavit by the University or even by its counsel at the time of hearing It is not expected from a body like the University to take a stand on any erroneous data and it also exhibits non-application of mind since Subarnarekha Mahavidyalya did present candidates for I.Sc. examination of the Utkal University in the year 1981. To our mind the notificaion of the University dated 3-2-1983 (Annexure-4) is quite categorical to
the effect that the University permitted for
opening the course indicated in the schedule
against the respective institutions for the
session 1982-83 and therefore, insertion of
” 1984-85″ against Subarnarekha
Mahavidyalaya in the schedule while narrating
the subject is either a mistake or is inoperative.
The substantive part of the notification will
undoubtedly operate and therefore, it must
be held that the notification did permit the
institution to open B.Sc. Classes with 80 seats
for the session 1982-83. We also do not see
any justification in not granting that facility to
the institution in spite of the concurrence of
the State Government and the
recommendation of the Inspectors of the
University who had conducted an enquiry. It
is painful to note that a student who took
admission in the College in 1982-83 and who
completed his two-year course in the College
in being prevented from appearing at the
examination conducted by the University. In
fact, the annual B.Sc. examination for the
year 1984 is already over. We are, however,
told that the University will be having its
supplementary examination some time by end
of July, 1984. In the premises narrated above
and for the reasons indicated earlier, we
unhesitatingly hold that the notification of the
University dated 3-2-1983 (Annexure-4) did
permit Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya for
opening B.Sc. Course with 80 seats for the
academic session 1982-83 and therefore, those
students who had taken admission in the said
college during the academic session 1982-83
are entitled to appear at the B. Sc Examination
of the University which was held in May,
1984. Since the said examination is already
over, we direct that opposite parties 1 and 2
should permit those students who had taken
admission in academic session 1982-83 in
Subarnarekha Mahavidyalaya in B. Sc. to take
the ensuing supplementary examinatioa
provided they fulfil all other conditions under
the University Regulation. The Vice
Chancellor (opposite party No. 1) and the
Controller of Examinations (opposite party
No. 2) should take all possible steps and issue
necessary instructions to petitioners 1 and 2 in
this regard so that the students can appear in
the ensuing supplementary examination and
thereby would not have to waste one more
year.
6. In the result, the writ application is allowed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order for costs.
P.C. Misra, J.
7. I agree.
