- (1.) The petitioner is an association of 16 self financing univer-sities of Rajasthan established to promote higher and professional education in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner association has questioned vires of the Rajasthan Private Universities' Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2010') being ultra vires and re-pugnant to the University Grants Commis-sion Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Act'), inasmuch as it has changed the designations of members of the petitioner-association by the aforesaid amendment made in the Rajasthan Private Universities' Law Act (Act 15 of 2010) substituting the words "Chancellor", "Vice-Chancellor" and "Pro-Vice-Chancellor" to "Chair Person", "President" and "Pro-President" respectively in the 13 Acts of the Private Universities mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Act of 2010. Thereafter, the Education De-partment of the Government of Rajasthan vide communication dated 15-7-2010 has directed the Member Universities of peti-tioner-association to modify the university record accordingly, and not to use the old designations of "Chancellor", "Vice-Chan-cellor" and "Pro-Vice-Chancellor" in future.
(2.) It is submitted in the writ petition that when the self financing universities were established in the year 2007 after due delib-erations by high level committee, the desig-nations of "Chancellor" and "Vice-Chancel-lor" were specifically noted and maintained in the private universities as per the conven-tion and these designations are well known and widely accepted under the UGC Act. It is further averred that the UGC Act deals with the coordination and determination of stan-dards in the universities so that homogenous structure can be evolved throughout the Country in respect of universities and edu-cation provided therein. It is also averred in the writ petition that the coordination of prac tices has been given paramount importance in the UGC Act. The amendment made in the Act 15 of 2010 would lead to creation of divergent, inconsistent and disparate prac-tices which will be against the spirit and pur-port of the UGC Act. Section 14 of the Pri-vate Universities (Establishment and Regu-lation) Act, 1995 provides the designation/ nomenclature of Chancellor and Vice-Chan-cellor etc. Even the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Anti-Ragging Regulations, 2009') also provides that the academic Head shall mean Vice-Chancellor in case of a uni-versity or a deemed to be university and the Principal or the Director or such other des-ignation as the executive head of the institu-tion or the college. The word "President" has not been specified by the UGC Act in the aforesaid Regulations. The action is discrimi-natory and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The change of nomen-clature is tilting the balance of educational institutions towards political, administrative and commercial lines as "Chair Person", "President" and "Pro-President" are the names used in such bodies.
(3.) In the reply filed by State Government, it is contended that the petitioner association cannot maintain the writ application. Except with respect to two universities, namely, Jaipur National University and Singhania University, Pacheri Badi, Jhunjhunu, all other 11 private universities have submitted draft statutes for approval before the State Gov-ernment in compliance of the Amendment made by the Act 15 of 2010 and amendments have also been published with respect to sev-eral universities. The petitioner association has not mentioned the aforesaid material as-pect. It has also been submitted in the reply that the Act 15 of 2010 can be questioned only on two grounds, viz., lack of legislative competence or violation of any fundamental right guaranteed in Part III of the Constitu-tion or any other Constitutional provision. There is a presumption with regard to con-stitutionality of an Act and the onus lies heavily upon the petitioner to prove viola-tion of any of the rights. The State Govern-ment has legislative competence which has not been questioned. The enactment in any manner does not impinge on the field re-served to the Union of India under Entry 66 of List 1 of Schedule Vll of the Constitution of India. In various other universities, the nomenclature of "President", "Vice-Presi-dent" and "Director" is in vogue, namely, Nirma University of Science and Technol-ogy, Ahmedabad (Gujarat); Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Niwai (Took); IASE Deemed University, Sardarshahar; Janardan Rai Nagar Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur; MNIT, Jaipur; LMN IIT, Jaipur; Harvard University (USA); Illinois Institute of Tech-nology (USA); Zurich University (Switzer-land); Queens University, Belfast (UK); City University, London; The University of Manchester (UK). There has to be a homo-geneity of standards and structures, that can-not be applied to nomenclature. Method of appointment of Vice-Chancel lor of the Gov-ernment universities is totally different than of such private universities, in which appoint-ment is made by the managing bodies. The petitioner is not able to make out how the change of nomenclature could put them in a disadvantageous position. The distinction between the private universities and State universities is not artificial and unfounded but substantial and relevant. The change in nomenclature is not going to cause difficulty in coordination and functioning of the UGC.;