- (1.) The petitioner-college has secured a sanction of the Bar Council of India for seeking for affiliation for B.Com. LL.B course with the University for the yearly sessions 2012-13 to 2014-15. The petitioner's case is that if the application was filed for last year 2013- 14, the University did not favourably consider and for the present year when the affiliation is sought again with the University after taking the decision of the Bar Council on 19.05.2014, the University declined affiliation without setting out reasons, simply by stating, "as per the decision of the Vice Chancellor, it is informed that you cannot be granted affiliation for initiating the B.Com. LL.B 5 years course w.e.f. 2014-15". At the time of arguments, the ground set up is that as per Rule 9.2 of the Statute of the University, the application for starting a new subject or class must be sent by January 31st of the year in which the college proposes to start the subjects. It is also the contention of the University that in terms of clause 4(i) of the Guru Nanak Dev University Act of 1969, the University shall make provision for imparting education and for promotion research in the humanities and other subjects as it thinks fit. The contention through the counsel is that the University enjoys full autonomy to decide not to have a course.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that when a professional body, like the Bar Council of India, which recognizes the need and merit of starting a B.Com. LL.B. Course, grants approval to seek for affiliation with the University, the University must see this as its responsibility to grant affiliation and recognize the imperatives of approval to what the State Bar Council recommends. The colleges are involved in strengthening the quality of education and University cannot reiterate a plea made in the manner in which it has been done. The counsel refers me to the impugned order dated 18.06.2014 which is cryptic in its expressions that as per the decision of the Vice Chancellor, affiliation cannot be granted.
(3.) The counsel for the University feeds into this slender non-speaking order weighty arguments with reference to the Statute and Act. The Statute requires the application to be given before the January of the year in which the course is sought to be started and since, in this case, the application has come about subsequently, the same cannot be entertained. I would accept this reason if it was tenable to find a place in the impugned order itself. If this was the only reason, then the University has a duty to explain how it dealt with the application which was filed the previous year within time before the stipulated period of January 2013. At that time, there was simply no consideration and the counsel for the University, however, is prepared to share that information that it was resolved that since the University did not have a main campus or a regional campus allowing for B.Com. LL.B course, it could not grant affiliation for any of the colleges affiliated to the University.;