- (1.) The intra Court appeal has been preferred questioning the legality of order dated 20.4.2011 passed by Single Bench in S.B.C.W.P. No. 4391/2011, dismissing the writ application in the matter of refusal to permit additional section of the students of 40 seats. The appellant is an educational institution. It applied for affiliation with the University of Rajasthan (for short "the University") for M.Sc. (Bio-Technology) Course for the academic year 2003-2004, which was provisionally granted with intake capacity of 40 students and the same was extended from time to time. However, for the academic year 2010-11, the appellant-institution prayed for increase in intake capacity of students from 40 to 80 seats. An application was filed for this purpose on 29.12.2009. A team of the inspectors visited the institution on 28.09.2010 and submitted summary of recommendations to the University on 29.09.2010. It was recommended by team of the inspectors that intake capacity be increased from 40 to 60 students with certain deficiencies to be completed by the institution with respect to library and appointment of the faculty, as per the norms prescribed by the University.
(2.) The report submitted by team of the inspectors was considered by the Board of Inspection (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in its meeting dated 21.10.2010 and decision was taken not to permit the increase in the intake capacity of the students from 40 to 60/80. The decision was communicated to the appellant-institution on 16.11.2010. As regular Vice-Chancellor namely Professor Furqan Qamar resigned, Professor A.D. Sawant, Ex-Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Mumbai was authorized to carry on the functions of the office of the Vice Chancellor of University of Rajasthan till a new Vice Chancellor is appointed under Section 12(1) of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Professor B.L. Sharma was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur for a period of three years from the date of joining the duties of his office vide order dated 28.11.2010. In-charge Vice Chancellor, Professor A.D. Sawant handed over the charge on 3.12.2010. The appellant-institution filed an application on 2.12.2010 regarding increase in the students intake capacity from 40 to 80 in academic session 2010-11. On this application, In-charge Vice Chancellor, before handing over the charge on next day, endorsed that, "As the rule made is 40 per section is after the admissions are done, the college is permitted for 2 sections. To report to BOI".
(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that the Vice Chancellor is a Member in the Board, which had taken the decision on 21.10.2010 not to increase the intake capacity of the students. Thereafter, the matter was again considered, as ordered by the In-charge Vice Chancellor, by the Board on 20.12.2010 in which regular Vice Chancellor participated and it was decided not to permit additional intake capacity of the students more than 40 seats. However, again, one of the Syndicate Members wrote a letter and thereafter, the Board again considered the matter in its meeting dated 7.2.2011 and it was decided not to permit additional section for the Session 2010-11 in the subject of M.Sc. (Bio Technology), Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant-institution filed a writ application at the fag end of March, 2011, submitting therein that acting upon the oral assurance given by the team of inspectors that they would recommend to increase the students' intake capacity from 40 to 60 seats, the institution had admitted 20 additional students on 30.9.2010 and the In-charge Vice Chancellor had exercised the emergency power envisaged under Section 13 of the Act, while granting permission. It was also submitted that decision taken by the Board for not increasing students' intake capacity was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Deficiencies, which were pointed out by the team of inspectors were not such, so as to deny the increase in intake capacity for additional section. In similar cases, while granting affiliation or extending the provisional affiliation, similar conditions with respect to improvement in library and appointment of teachers in accordance with the University norms had been imposed by the respondent, but in the case of the appellant, similar treatment has not been given. Thus, there was no rhyme and reason with the Board to take a discriminatory decision in the case of the appellant-institution. The Board ought to have accepted the recommendations made by the team of inspectors and once Vice Chancellor had exercised the emergency power to grant permission, it was not open for the Board to again reconsider the matter and refuse additional section.;