K. Kannan J. - (1.) All the three writ petitions are in relation to the affairs of the petitioner's society in CWP No. 14688 of 2013 that runs a College of Architecture in the State of Haryana at Karnal. C.W.P. No. 14688 of 2013 is against the order withdrawing the approval granted to the petitioner-society with immediate effect through the order passed on 02.07.2013. By the same order, the institution was directed to facilitate the transfer of B. Arch students already admitted and who were staying in the college upto 3rd year to other institution approved by the Council of Architecture. This order came to be passed in supersession of earlier order to the same effect which was purported to have been passed on 06.05.2013 where the Council of Architecture de-recognized the institute for academic session 2013-14. The said order had been challenged in C.W.P. No. 11323 of 2013 on the ground that the order had been passed without any form of enquiry on the basis of a report on surprise inspection held on 07.03.2013. The High Court had directed by its order dated 10.06.2013 that fresh order should be passed after granting opportunity by the competent authority and the Council before any action was taken. The impugned order was passed subsequent to such enquiry. The order in so far as it affects the interest of the students to continue in the course has been challenged also by some of the students. C.W.P. No. 16381 of 2013 contains a challenge to the very same order at the instance of a student of the 4th year batch, as aggrieved by the decision. CWP No. 17102 of 2013 is at the instance of the student association containing a similar prayer to the impugned order. The decision in one will cover the grievances of the students as well. II. Council's withdrawal of permission-genesis of dispute
(2.) The petitioner-Society would challenge the order, inter alia, on the ground that the institute had actually been inspected by an expert committee on 06.07.2012 and gave a report on the following day on 07.07.2012 finding the facilities to be good, standard of education to be high, the quality of and number of teachers to be adequate and recommended that the college could be allowed additional 40 seats. The ultimate expressions were that the college was "well-equipped as far as the faculty, quality of teaching and other aspects are concerned." Even within a year after the inspection, a surprise inspection said to have been made on 08.03.2013 yielded to a finding that no regular courses for the 4th year students had been held for the last three years and that there were only three permanent faculty members out of which one was ineligible and another one came only three times a week and the Principal was taking care of the administration and taking only one subject Vastu. It also observed that out of four visiting staff, one Ms. Deepali and another B.S. Mitra did not take classes. Based on this surprise inspection report on 08.03.2013, the earlier order was passed on 06.05.2013 directing the institute not to admit any student and transfer of the existing batch upto 3rd year to some other institution. The students of the 4th year batch had been totally discarded and they were not to be eligible for admission on migration at the 4th year level to any other college as well as registration with degree Architecture if awarded by any other college upon completion of the course. It was this drastic action that was set aside by an intervention of this Court directing fresh enquiry to be made. III. The petitioner's grounds of challenge
(3.) Responding to the specific areas of deficiencies, the learned Senior Counsel would point out that there had been adequate number of teachers and affidavits of the teachers and students have been furnished. The alleged deficiency noted that no classes were being held was on a wrong understanding that on the particular day of inspection, the students of the 4th years had not been present when they were actually on an education tour and documentary proof had also been furnished. The mistake that was pointed out that the list of teachers furnished was not true by the observation that some of the students had not even identified the teachers was on account of the fact that just about the time of inspection, some teachers had been kept under suspension following a complaint of sexual assault on a student by one teacher and disciplinary action taken against him. The new appointments that had been made had not taken charge yet and that was the reason why the students were not familiar with the new appointees. It was also pointed out that even a complaint that the faculty was not fully qualified, was not correct since both as regards the number and qualification they were better off and in any event not worse than the teachers who had been appointed and the qualifications that were held by persons employed as teachers in the colleges run by at least three of the members of the Council. The attempt was to show that the Council was showing unfair discrimination and the action discrediting the quality of faculty was motivated and brought out on mala fide actions of members of the Council. On a legal aspect, even apart from the factual matters for which the petitioner was entering a contest, the contention was that an inspection carried out in the year 2012 that yielded to a report that the institute had all the necessary infrastructure and there was a recommendation for an increased intake only as late as on 07.06.2012, there was no scope for an inspection immediately even within a year and withdrawing the recognition. The Council had no power to withdraw any recognition and it was contrary to terms of the Architects Act of 1972. For any defect or deficiencies noted by the Council, it could only make its recommendation to the Government and the Union Government alone has a power to withdraw the recognition granted to the institute. The institute is affiliated with the Kurukshetra University and the University had carried out its inspection and had allowed for the continuation of affiliation and the Council had no jurisdiction to withdraw the approval granted to the institute. IV. The Union of India fully supports petitioner's prayer;