Hon'ble Rastogi, J. - (1.) SINCE respondent -University entered into a caveat, the parties were heard at motion stage.
(2.) THE petitioner is an Educational Institution established & managed by a society registered under the Rajasthan Society's Registration Act, 1958. As alleged in the writ petition, petitioner initially applied for affiliation with the University of Rajasthan (respondent) for M.Sc. (Bio -Tech.), course for academic year 2003 -04 which was provisionally granted with 40 students' intake capacity, and extended from time to time. However, petitioner applied for increase in students' intake capacity from 40 to 80 seats for academic year 2010 -11 vide application dt.29.12.2009 (Ann.3), pursuant to which, a team of inspection was constituted by the Board of Inspection and the Team visited the Institute on 28.9.2010 and after thorough inspection prepared its factual report alongwith summary of recommendations on 29.9.2010, with certain requirements to be fulfilled and the report dt.29.9.2010 was submitted by the inspection team and was considered in a meeting held on 21.10.2010 by the Board of Inspection ("BOI") which is a statutory body constituted U/s 24 -I of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 ("the Act") and after examining the report (supra) & the material enclosed therewith, the BOI did not increase students' intake capacity in case of the petitioner institute and the decision was communicated to the petitioner -institute vide office order dt.16.11.2010 (Ann.R/1). There -after a letter was sent by Chairman of petitioner Institute to the Vice Chancellor on 2.12.2010 regarding increase in students' intake from 40 to 80 seats in academic session 2010 -11, which was again considered by the BOI on 20.12.2010 unanimously resolving to recommend that earlier decision taken by the BOI in its meeting dt.21.10.2010 vide resolution 4(i) i.e. 40 seats stands, which was conveyed to petitioner -institute vide communication dt.6.1.2011 (Ann.R/2). It has come on record that a further letter dt.31.12.2010 was received from one of Syndicate members along with copy of letter of Chairman of petitioner -Institute regarding increase in intake capacity in M.Sc. (Bio -Tech.) from 40 to 60 students; on which again it was resolved to recommend that earlier decision taken by the BOI at its meeting held on 21.10.2010 vide resolution No.4(i) i.e. 40 seats stands and the said decision taken by the BOI in its meeting held on 07.2.2011 (Ann.13) while considering MLA's letter dt. 31.12.2010, was also communicated to petitioner -Institute vide letter dt.25.2.2011 (Ann.8), which has been assailed by petitioner by way of instant petition with the prayer that recommendations of the Team of inspection vide its report dt.29.9.2010 may be accepted and the petitioner -Institute may be held to be entitled for increase in students' intake capacity as recommended by Team of Inspection and as a consequence whereof, respondent -University may be further directed to allow 60 students through petitioner -institute to appear in ensuing examination commencing from 06.4.2011.
(3.) SHRI Mahendra Singh, Counsel for petitioner submits that once the Team of inspection has made recommendations after fulfilling conditions/ suggestions pointed out vide its report dt.29.9.2010, the BOI and Syndicate were under legal obligation to record reasons as to why recommendations made by Team of Inspection were not acceptable; inasmuch as since the decision of BOI & Syndicate has caused adverse consequences, and before the decision being taken, it was under obligation to call upon petitioner -Institute by affording opportunity of hearing - in absence whereof, the decision of the BOI & Syndicate was in violation of principles of natural justice and also Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.;