UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION REGD BANGALORE Vs. REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners herein are three different associations consisting of the employees of the respondent-1, university of agricultural sciences, g.k.v.k. campus, hebbal, Bangalore. They have filed this writ petition challenging an executive order issued by the vice-chancellor of university of agricultural sciences, Bangalore, communicated by the registrar at annexure-t, whereby the vice-chancellor ordered that the regulations regarding giving "weightage of 10 marks for children of uas employees for admission to under-graduate programmes in this university is kept in abeyance." Attacking this order at annexure-t, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners read as follows: (a) issue a writ or certiorari and to quash the notification No. R/d/3, dated 3-7-1990 - annexure-t issued by the respondent; (b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the benefit of weightage granted by the academic council under the regulation which was published in the gazette dated 14-12-1989, Annexure-A to the children of the employees of the university; (c) issue any other appropriate writ or direction or order as the case may be in the circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and equity."

(2.) the reasons which compelled the petitioners to attack annexure-t and to seek the reliefs, as extracted above, are: (1) all the associations are formed by the employees of the university with a view to see that some concession is given to their children in seeking admission to various under-graduate programmes as given by other universities in the matter as mentioned at annexures-b to o (pages 18 to 30 of the writ petition). A suggestion was made to the university to make necessary provision in the form of regulation keeping reservation for the children of employees of the university. By exercising the power conferred under Section 41 of the university of agricultural sciences Act, 1963, a notification came to be issued on 16-10-1989, gazetted in the Karnataka gazette, dated 14-12-1989, which reads as follows: office of the registrar, g.k.v.k. campus, Bangalore notification dated 16th october, 1989 sub: modification to regulations ref: minutes of the 89th meeting of the academic council. No. R/d/3 add the following new clause under regulations relating to 'mode of admission' for under-graduate programmes. "add weightage of 10 marks over and above the percentage of marks obtained in part II of the qualifying examination in addition to other weightages to the natural children of all regular employees of university of agricultural ,, sciences, Bangalore, including monthly rated farm labours, either serving at present, retired or deceased while in service or after retirement. Daily wage employees, employees working on consolidated salary and those appointed under statutes 30(4-a), 32(d), those on contract employment, teaching fellows, research fellows, research associates and similarly placed employees are not eligible to avail this benefit. The above regulations will be effective from the academic year 1990-91 and onwards." The said regulation came to be kept in abeyance by an order of the vice-chancel I or at annexure-t, according to the petitioners, the order at annexure-t is without jurisdiction for the reason that the vice-chancel lor was a party to the earlier resolution at annexure-a. Being a party to such resolution, he cannot take a decision to keep it in abeyance; (2) making such a provision of adding weigh tage of 10 marks is not at all discriminatory in nature. Such a precedent has been followed in other universities as explained above; (3) nowhere in the act either the vice-chancel lor or the registrar or even the academic council has authority to keep in abeyance an order or regulation once made. At best if the competent body feels a law made by way of regulation is bad, either it can abrogate or repeal but cannot keep it in abeyance.

(3.) as against these contentions, Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents, argues that under the act the authorities including the vice-chancel lor have wide powers to keep an order or a regulation in abeyance when it so warrants particularly when the situation is of emergency in nature; (2) the way in which the regulation has been framed makes it clear that it is the direct violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, as by virtue of making such a reservation for children of the employees of the university indirectly and intelligently an attempt has been made to other hundreds of thousands of students who are standing in the queue seeking admission for different faculties; (3) it is not sure how the order at annexure-t is unjust or without an authority of law.