- (1.) The Committee of Management of Singasini Devi Mahila Mahavidyalay, Nema, Deoria is the petitioner no. 1 in this writ petition and its Manager has joined the petition as petitioner no. 2. They have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of an order dated 22nd May, 2016 issued by the Registrar of the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur communicating the decision of the Affiliating Committee of the University, whereby the application of the petitioners' institution for affiliation to conduct the B.Ed. course has been rejected on two grounds: (i) the University did not issue any no objection in terms of the Government order dated 27th September, 2002, and (ii) the inspection panel constituted by the University has not submitted its report to the University.
(2.) In a companion writ petition, Writ-C No. 28274 of 2016 (C/M Ramesh Chandra Rao Navtappi Mahavidyalaya and another v. State of U.P. and others), similar facts and controversy were involved and this Court vide its order dated 24th June, 2016 has partly allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the University to take a fresh decision. The order passed in the said writ petition reads thus: "The petitioner no. 1 is a Committee of Management of a Degree College, Ramesh Chandra Rao Navtappi Mahavidyalaya, Rampurgarh, Deoria and the petitioner no. 2 claims to be its Manager. This proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the petitioners for quashing an order dated 22nd May, 2016 issued by the Registrar of the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur communicating the decision of the Affiliating Committee of the University, whereby the application of the petitioners' institution for affiliation to conduct the B.Ed. course has been rejected. The aforesaid Degree College, which is managed by the petitioners, is affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (for short, the "University"). It is governed under the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and its First Statutes. In the year 2012 the petitioners' institution intended to conduct B.Ed. course and accordingly, made applications to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and the University. The NCTE vide its order dated 29th May, 2015 granted recognition to the petitioners' institution to conduct B.Ed. course of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 (two units) from the academic session 2015-16. However, the University has rejected the application of the petitioners for affiliation vide impugned order on two grounds: (i) the University did not issue any no objection in terms of the Government order dated 27th September, 2002, and (ii) the inspection panel constituted by the University has not submitted its report to the University. As regards the first ground that the University has not issued any no objection is concerned, this Court in its judgement dated 24th June, 2016 rendered in companion Writ-C No. 28141 of 2016 (C/M Babu Baij Nath Singh Mahavidyalaya and another v. State of U.P. and others) has elaborately considered this issue and has set aside the order of the University for the reasons mentioned in the said judgement. Insofar as the second ground that the inspection panel constituted by the University has not submitted its report is concerned, the petitioners in paragraph-18 of the writ petition have averred that a three-Member Committee constituted by the University has submitted its report on 28th May, 2016, wherein it has made a recommendation for affiliation. It is stated that the Committee has found that the petitioners' institution fulfils the norms laid down by the University and the Government order. A copy of the said report is on the record as annexure-8 to the writ petition. The University, however, in its counter affidavit has not specifically denied the said averments made in the writ petition and has given an evasive reply. Paragraph-18 of the writ petition has been replied by the University in paragraph-34 of the counter affidavit which reads as under: "34. That the contents of paragraph 18 of the writ petition are the matters of record hence, need no reply. However, the suitable reply has already been given in the preceding paragraph of this affidavit. The inspection panel is constituted as per government order dated 5.2.2014 for grant of affiliation. But the fact remains when the recognition is self faulty as no objection certificate by the competent authority has admittedly been not submitted by the petitioner along with the application for grant of the recognition before the N.C.T.E. and, therefore, the subsequent action is not in accordance with law." As can be seen, the University has not denied the fact that a report has been submitted on 28th May, 2016. The University has also not denied the fact that the said report, which is part of the record, is a fabricated document. In view of the evasive reply given by the University, the Court has no reason to disbelieve the averments made in paragraph-18 of the writ petition. In the companion writ petition i.e. C/M Babu Baij Nath Singh Mahavidyalaya and in a batch of writ petitions, in the impugned orders the grounds are similar and identical and in those cases after quashing the impugned order, this Court has remitted the matter back to the University to reconsider the issue afresh. The operative part of the judgement in C/M Babu Baij Nath Singh Mahavidyalaya is quoted below: "In view of the reasons stated above, I find that once the decision taken by the University is found to be contrary and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct the University to reconsider its decision in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned above. For the reasons recorded herein-above, I find that the impugned order of the University dated 22nd May, 2016 needs to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. The matter is remitted to the University to take a fresh decision in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs." In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2016 in this case also is quashed. The matter is remitted to the University to consider and take a fresh decision in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs."
(3.) In the present case also, the petitioners have brought on record the report of the inspection panel of the University dated 28th May, 2016 as annexure-9 to the writ petition, to which there is no denial on the part of the University.;