MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) In all the above-mentioned Special Appeals in question, as common question of law has been engaging the attention of this Court, the Special Appeals in question are being decided collectively.
(2.) Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur through its Vice Chancellor is before this Court seeking to assail the judgement and order of Learned Single Judge rendered on 24.06.2016 passed in Writ C No.28274/2016 (C/M Ramesh Chandra Rao Navtappi Mahavidyalaya and another v. State of U.P. and others) whereby the matter has been remitted back to the University concerned to consider and take fresh decision in accordance with law preferably within stipulated period. The basic facts pertaining to issue in question may be stated as follows:- The C/M Ramesh Chandra Rao Navtappi Mahavidyalaya Rampurgarh, Deoria is the Society registered on 08.03.2016 under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the said Society runs an Institution known as Ramesh Chandra Rao Navtappi Mahavidyalaya Rampurgarh, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution') . The said Institution is a self financed institution and is duly affiliated with Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. The Institution in question is governed by the provisions of U.P. State University Act, 1973 (in brevity the 'Act 1973') as well as the Rules and Regulations framed therein and the provisions of NCTE Act. It appears that the said Institution is imparting education upto undergraduate level and recognition was also accorded to the same under section 37(2) of U.P. State University Act, 1973 in the year 2012 for running graduation classes. The said Institution in the year 2012 has applied for recognition for running the B.Ed. course and for the said purpose, fee has been deposited as required under the provisions of NCTE Act. On the said request being made, the NCTE had issued a letter of intent in favour of Institution under clause 7(9) of the NCTE Regulations 2014 on 09.05.2015. The NCTE vide its order dated 29.05.2015 granted recognition to the petitioners' Institution to conduct B.Ed. course of two years duration for an annual intake of 100 (two units) from the academic session 2015-16. However the University concerned had rejected the application of petitioners for affiliation vide order dated 22.05.2016 issued by the Registrar of the University and communicated the decision of Affiliating Committee of the University, whereby the application of petitioners' Institution to conduct the B.Ed. Course has been declined. While rejecting the said claim, the University had taken two grounds (i) the University did not issue any no objection in terms of the Government Order dated 27.09.2002 (ii) the inspection penal constituted by the University not submitted the report to the University.
(3.) In this backdrop while partly allowing the Writ Petition in question, the Learned Single Judge has proceeded to consider both the grounds which were taken by the concerned University for rejecting the claim of petitioners' Institution. The relevant is extracted below:- "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 (supra) 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 (supra) 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." ;