ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA - (1.) This petition is by an unaided self-financed private college affiliated to respondent no.3 University. It has been granted recognition to run different courses, including Bachelor of Education course. The admission process for the course is regulated by Uttar Pradesh State University (Regulation of Admission to Course of Instruction for Degree in Education in Affiliation and Constituent Colleges) Order, 1987, which has been amended from time to time. At the relevant point of time the 10th Amendment Order of 2015 was in operation. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to grant of admission to respondent nos.4 to 6 as according to the respondent University the grant of admission to them was not as per the procedure prescribed and hence has not been approved.
(2.) The petitioner college had earlier approached this Court in respect of the same cause by filing Writ Petition No.28048 of 2019 which came to be disposed of vide following order passed on 26.8.2019:- "Heard Sri Harshit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rohit Pandey learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner claims that the students have been admitted against the vacant seats of S.C. candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits. that the petitioner. has filed an application on 13.07.2019 before the University, for approval of admission of three students, who were admitted through the process of direct admission. The admissions were made before the last date of admission 15.07.2019. The admissions were made against the reserved but unclaimed seats of S.C. category. Learned counsel for the respondent-University, submits that the University, has received a number of complaints were belonging to the S.C. category, where the institutions, have not granted admission, to the students. who were required to be admitted on a zero fee basis, as per policy of the State Government. It needs to be ascertained for a fact, whether the petitioner-institution also falls in that category or not. He then submits, that admissions can only be made, as per the regulations, framed by the State Government, in compliance of the orders, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in College of Professional Education and others Vs State of U.P. and others, reported at (2013) 2 SCC 721. Be that as it may, the matter is remitted to respondent no. 2-State Coordinator, U.P.B.Ed. Joint Entrance Examination 2019-20, Nehru Kendra, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. The respondent no. 2, shall decide the representation of the petitioner for making direct admissions, after verification of all necessary facts, and also in accordance with the bye-laws, framed by the State Government, in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in College of Professional Education and others (supra). The exercise shall be completed, preferably, within a period of 15 days, from the date of, receipt of, a certified copy of this order, along with a fresh copy of the representation. The Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions made in the writ petition nor has the claim of the petitioner been judged on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so after independent application of mind. The writ petition is disposed of."
(3.) It is thereafter and in terms of the direction aforesaid that respondent no.2 University considered the issue vide order dated 13.9.2019 and rejected the representation made by the petitioner institution. This order records that the college was entitled to admit 100 students only and that in the counselling process all 100 seats had been filled. It is stated that three students belonging to scheduled caste category namely Km. Reenu Devi, Km. Renu and Jyoti Chaudhary were allotted petitioner college but they have been denied admission by the petitioner institution and their seats have been offered to respondent nos.4 to 6. It is stated that the admission offered to scheduled caste category candidates fell in the zero fee category and even if they had not reported till the pool counselling and direct admission process, yet their seats could not be treated as vacant and filled by way of direct admission process. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.;