SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 19.8.1998 against the respondents with the prayers that by an appropriate writ, order or direction. (1) it be declared that the proposed closure/closure of academic activities of Mohta Ayurveda College, Sadulpur (respondent No. 5) is illegal. (2) alternatively and without prejudice respondent -State be directed to either take over Mohta Ayurveda College, Sadulpur (respondent No. 5) or to appoint an Administrator to run the College. (3) alternatively, the respondent No. 6 Bhaskar Educational Society be directed to fulfill its undertaking of making finances available for the purpose of running the College. (4) the notice dated 21st July, 1998 (Annex. 1) informing the petitioner that his services stand terminated at the end of three months be declared to be invalid and be quashed and the respondents No. 4 and 5 be restrained from terminating services of the petitioner at the end of three months period as given in the notice dated 21.7.1998 (Annex. 1). (5) if for any reason the termination is brought about the same be declared to be invalid and be quashed. (6) alternatively the respondent -State be directed to absorb the petitioner to the service of the respondent -State in terms of the Rajasthan Absorption of Surplus Personnel Service Rules.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Botany in the Mohta Ayurveda College, Sadulpur (respondent No. 5) (for short 'respondent -College') on probation vide order dated 22nd May, 1982, a copy of which is marked as Annex.2. It was submitted by the petitioner that the respondent -College is being run by the respondent No. 4 Mohta Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya Prabandh Samiti, Sadulpur (for short 'the respondent -Prabandh Samiti'), a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent -College was granted temporary affiliation from the University of Rajasthan upto the year 1997 and thereafter, the respondent -Prabandh Samiti did not choose to make application for extension of the affiliation. But, so far as the respondent No. 3 University of Rajasthan is concerned, it has taken the position that affiliation would stand till the students granted admission during the period of affiliation go out of the said College and, therefore, it can safely be said that the affiliation continues. Therefore, the condition of services will be those provided for teachers of affiliated College in Part IV of Ordinance 67, and/or in 67 -A, 67 -B, 68 and 68 -A of the Ordinances of the University. It was for this reason that after the appointment was given to the petitioner, the approval of the University of Rajasthan was sought and was given vide letter dated 21.7.1982, a copy which is marked as Annex. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent -Prabandh Samiti has been mis -managing the respondent -College for quite some time and in that process, services of teachers were terminated and such termination orders were challenged by S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4035/97 Shambhu Dayal Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. which is pending before Jaipur Bench of this Court. Apart from this, a lot of litigations have transpired between the teachers and the respondent -Prabandh Samiti. The further case of the petitioner is that running of a College is not a private affair and it is not open to those who opened the College to close the college whenever they may choose to do so obviously for the reason that it involves lives of several persons i.e. teachers and the students. The petitioner has placed reliance on Clause (8) of Statute 26 of the Statutes of the University of Rajasthan and the same is quoted here: Affiliated College Management: 26(8) Every college not maintained by a Government shall satisfy the Syndicate that adequate financial provision is available for its efficient maintenance, either in the form of an endowment or by an undertaking given by the person or body maintaining it, and that the college is established on a permanent basis. If at any time the Governing Body of a college may be unable to run the College, it shall inform the Syndicate at least one full academic year in advance and shall give a notice of a similar duration, viz., one full academic year to the employees of the institution for termination of their services: Provided that the closure of an Institution shall be in gradual stages in respect of each course of study for which it is affiliated, starting from the first year of the course.The petitioner has also placed reliance on Rules 17 and 11 -M of the Rajasthan Ayurveda Grant -in -aid Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1972') and the same are quoted below: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice Annex. 1 dated 21.7.1998 on various grounds and by that notice Annex. 1, the services of the petitioner were ordered to be dispensed with after expiry of three months of that notice and according to the petitioner, the impugned notice Annex. 1 is wholly illegal being contrary to statutory provisions made in Clause (8) of Statute 26 of the Statutes of the University of Rajasthan. The closure of the respondent -College is also challenged on the ground that before ordering closure of the respondent -College, a notice of one full academic year should have been given. Similarly, the services of the employees of the College could have only be terminated by giving atleast a notice of one full academic year in advance and since such notice has not been given to the petitioner before terminating his services, therefore, the impugned notice/order Annex -1 dated 21.7.1998 is illegal and without jurisdiction and thus, it should be quashed and set aside. It was further submitted by the petitioner that the requirement of giving of notice of one full academic year for closure of the Institution as well as for termination of services of the employee of the Institution is also contained in Clause (8) of Statute 26 of the Statutes of the University of Rajasthan as well as in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1972. Since it has been done in the instant case, therefore, closure of the respondent -College as well as termination of services of the petitioner are illegal and cannot be sustained. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was first filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, who are respectively State of Rajasthan and Director, Ayurveda Department, Ajmer and in that reply, it has been contended by them that the writ petition raises disputed questions of facts and such questions cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, from this point of view, the present writ petition should be dismissed. The further case of the respondents No. 1 and 2 is that on 26.2.1997, the respondent -College was inspected by the Inspecting Committee consisting of Principal. Government Ayurved Nurse/Compounder Training Centre, Ajmer and Professor, Government Madanmohan Malviya Ayurved College, Udaipur in presence of the petitioner himself, who was working as Acting Principal on that day and the salient features of the inspection report (Annex. R/1) are as follows: (1) That in the respondent -College, no classes were being run. (2) That the Laboratory for preparing the medicines was found closed. (3) That at the time of inspection, no medicines or other things pertaining to medicines were found. (4) That in the preceding year, no classes were taken and in class rooms, dust was found, which shows that no classes had taken place. (5) That teachers and other employees informed the Inspecting Committee that the Prabandh Samiti of the respondent -College intended to close the College and no satisfactory answer in this respect was given by the petitioner, who was at that time Acting Principal, and thus, from the side of the Prabandh Samiti of the respondent -College, no interest for running the College was found by the Inspecting Committee. (6) That at the time of inspection, the petitioner was holding the charge of Principal and that was also found contrary to the Rules, as the petitioner was a teacher of Science. (7) That in the preceding year, no admission was given to the students and at that time, only students of one class were found and final examinations had already taken place. Thus, in the above circumstances, the Inspecting Committee came to the conclusion that the respondent -College was not fit for grant of Government aid for running it. Thus, it was submitted by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that because of the reason mentioned in the inspection report Annex. R/1, the aid was not given by the State Government to the respondent -College for running it and since at the time of inspection, the petitioner was present therefore, every thing was in his knowledge. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. The respondents No. 4 and 5 have also submitted separate reply to the writ petition and it has been contended by them that the petitioner, as an employee of the respondent -College; is not entitled to insist for continuation of the College nor he can claim for taking over of the College by the State Government. So far as the termination of services of the petitioner is concerned, it was submitted by the respondents No. 4 and 5 that the the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated after giving notice. Since academic activities have been discontinued since long and the respondent -Prabandh Samiti had no funds to manage and maintain the respondent -College and the aid was not forthcoming from the State Government for various reasons, therefore, in these circumstances, there was no option left with the respondent -Prabandh Samiti except to close the respondent -College. In such circumstances, the respondents No. 4 and 5 also filed a writ petition before the Jaipur Bench of this Court being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1961/96 with the prayer that adequate grants be allowed to the respondents No. 4 and 5 for the purposes of meeting out the recurring expenses etc. and besides this, other litigations are also pending in the Jaipur Bench of this Court. Apart from this, the petitioner was last person remaining as an employee and the notice/order dated 21.7.1998 (Annex. 1) was the natural consequence of the closure of the respondent -College. Thus, no question of deprivation of livelihood or violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India arises. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. I have heard the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
(3.) AT the very outset, it may be stated here that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs that the respondent -College should be allowed to run and further, the Government be directed to take over the respondent -College or to appoint an Administrator to run the respondent -College, as such type of reliefs cannot be granted by this Court under extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;