Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) Petitioner by this writ petition seeks to espouse grievance of himself and others like him in seeking interference with decision of respondent no.1 University to not grant admission to them for post graduate study on the ground they do not possess valid graduate degree. By order dated 15th September, 2017 a co-ordinate Bench had granted leave to petitioner to prosecute the writ petition in representative capacity under Rule 12 of the Writ Rules and directed an interim measure as would appear from extract below: "I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. I am not deciding the writ petition on merits today. I quite appreciate the submission of Mr. Choudhuri that if the petitioners have not obtained degrees which are recognized by the University, they are not entitled to be admitted. However, this is one of the issues that this Court will have to decide at the final hearing of the writ petition. If finally the petitioners succeed, they would have lost out the classes and it would be practically impossible for the University to compensate the petitioners at that stage for the loss of classes. Hence, purely as an interim workable measurer, I direct the University to permit Bimal Maity, Saikat Sarkar, Soumen Bhattacharjee, Moumita Some Chowdhury, Dhiman Mondal, Ranu Sahu and Anindya Sundar Giri who ranked amongst the first 22 candidates in the final merit list to attend classes in the Course in question till November 15, 2017 or until further orders whichever is earlier. I make it absolutely clear that this order will not create any right or equity in favour of the said seven students. This order will not be treated as a precedent under any circumstances. It is purely out of concern for the educational career of the seven young students that I am passing this order. It is understood that in the event the writ petition fails, the said seven students would not insist on any kind of right or entitlement to continue in the University."
(2.) University Grants Commission (UGC) in exercise of power under section 26 of UGC Act, 1956 had formulated UGC (Establishment and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. Pursuant to said regulations, notice dated 7th June, 2012 had been issued regarding respondent no.4 University, confining it to grant degrees within State of Meghalaya. The notification was challenged by said respondent in High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura (Shillong Bench). A limited interim order dated 17th August, 2012 was made, text of which is reproduced below: "17.08.2012 Heard Mr.SS Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. VGK Kynta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SC Shyam, learned CGC and Mr. ND Chullai, learned senior GA appearing for the State respondents. After hearing the learned senior counsel and the learned CGC, it appears that the sole question which falls the consideration in the writ petition is whether the UGC has the authority to pass the impugned public notice. After going through the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003, we are of the prima facie view that such power is not vested with the UGC. We are therefore inclined to pass a limited stay order. Liberty is granted to the learned CGC to obtain instruction and place the same before this Court on the next returnable date. The prayer for interim order will be considered on 31.08.2012. Till then, the impugned order dated 7.6.2012 (Annexure 2) in so far as the petitioner University is concerned shall not be given effect to."
(3.) Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appeared on behalf of petitioner and submitted, during subsistence of said interim order dated 17th August, 2012 there was no bar on respondent no.4 to grant affiliation to proforma respondent no.5, latter being an institute situate in Kolkata. Said institute obtained affiliation from respondent no.4 and conducted course study to which petitioner got admitted in year 2014. Respondent no.4 granted graduate degree to his client in year 2017. Since then his client and others have been pursuing post graduate course study in respondent no.1 University pursuant to interim order but have not been allowed to take end semester examinations.;