PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. JAIN VISHVA BHARATI INSTITUTE
LAWS(RAJ)-2004-7-13
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on July 06,2004

PRAVEEN KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
JAIN VISHVA BHARATI INSTITUTE Respondents







JUDGEMENT

GUPTA, J. - (1.)BY this writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the charge-sheet Annexure-8 dt. 24. 3. 2004, so also order of expulsion, passed against the two petitioners on 31. 3. 2004 being Annexure-9 & 10, and also seek a direction to allow both the petitioners to appear in the Final Examination of MSW Course commencing from 19. 4. 2004, or any other date as notified by the respondents, for the Academic Session 2003-2004. The directions are sought against the two respondents, being no. 1 Jain Vishva Bharati Institute (Deemed University) Ladnun, District Nagour through its Vice Chancellor, and no. 2 being the Registrar, Jain Vishva Bharati Institute (Deemed University ).
(2.)THE factual allegations are, that the Institute was founded in the year 1970, with the inspiration of late Acharya Shri Tulsi, as a centre of education, literature, culture, social service, meditation and spirituality, with a primary objective of the institute, to provide instruction, training, research, experimentation, in the fields of oriental learning, Shraman culture and other related subjects. THE Institute is imparting education in the field of Jainology, Science of Living and Programmes in Social Work namely; Bachelor of Social Work (BSW), and Master in Social Work (MSW) etc. It is alleged, that in the year 1991, by issuance of notification under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, hereafter to be referred to as "the Act. ' the Institute was notified as deemed University. It is getting aid from the University Grants Commission (UGC), and the teachers employed are governed, in the service conditions, and wage structure, as prescribed by the UGC, the courses and curriculum for the studies are also prescribed by the UGC. Thus the Institute is working as per guidelines of the UGC. THE degrees of Graduation, as well as Post Graduation awarded by the Institute are also recognised degrees. Thus, it is alleged, the the Institute is an `instrumentality of the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Regarding petitioners it is alleged, that the first petitioner did his Graduation in Arts from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in the year 2002, and sought admission in the respondent Institute for prosecuting studies of MSW in the Academic Session 2002-2003, being two years Post Graduate Degree Course. He competed the Previous Examination. The second petitioner is said to have completed the graduation from Rajkiya Kara Mahavidyalaya, Alwar, which was affiliated to University of Rajasthan in the year 1997. Then he did his Post Graduation in Political Science in the year 2000, and thereafter sought admission in the respondent Institute for prosecuting the studies of MSW in the Academic Session 2002-2003, and passed Previous Examination in the year 2003. In para 6 it is pleaded that the petitioners were vigilant and were also concerned about their fellow student and therefore, on many occasions, before the respondents, and other teachers, both of them espoused just causes of the students. In this sequence, when they approached on 2-3 occasions to ventilate the grievances, it was not taken in good taste by the teachers of the respondent Institute, and in order to camouflage their omissions and commissions and their failures, vitiated the atmosphere, and attempts were, to implicate both the petitioners in some alleged misdemeanors and misbehaviors with the fellow students, including terrorizing fellow students. With this, it is alleged, that when the Academic Session 2003-2004 was on the verge of completion, the second respondent passed an office order on 24. 3. 2004, in the joint name of both the petitioners alleging that they are creating unpleasant atmosphere, and indiscipline in the campus as well as outside. Both the students were suspended from attending the classes, and they were asked to vacate the hostel. The order was also accompanied with the charges framed against both the petitioners, inasmuch as, 8 charges were framed against the first petitioner, and 6 charges were framed against the second petitioner. The charges include, not only himself boycotting, but also threatening and influencing his fellow mates and junior students, to boycott the Foundation Day function, which was held on Saturday, 20. 3. 2004. According to the petitioners, they were required to submit their explanation on 25. 3. 2004 at 5 P. M. itself, which shows, that the respondents have per-determined the proposed action against both the petitioners. As they were asked to vacate the hostel, and they were not having the support of their parents and well wishers at the relevant time, taking advantage of this helpless and vulnerable position, the petitioners were asked to accept the charges, interalia, in these circumstances, both the petitioners submitted their reply, partly admitting the charges, and without holding any formal enquiry, and without giving opportunity to produce their defence, impugned orders, Annexure-9 and Annexure-10, were passed, expelling them from the Institute with immediate effect.

I need not got to the grounds of challenge to the impugned orders Annexure-9 and Annexure-10, or seriousness of the charges framed vide Annexure-8, for the simple reason, that the respondent Institute is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, as the same is not Instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12, as it is Society, registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, the objectives of the Institute are enumerated in Clause 5 of its Memorandum and Articles of Association. It is a deemed University, but is an autonomous body, and is not having deep and pervasive control' of the Government of Rajasthan, or the Government of India, the Administration and Management of the Institute is maintained according to the Memorandum of Association of the Institute, the highest executive body of the institute is Shista Parishad, which acts as a general deliberative and supervisory body, the principal executive body of the Institute is Prabandha Mandal/board of Management, which consists of:- (i) Kulpati- Chairman, (ii) Two nominees of the Kuladhipati; who shall be person of eminence in the fields of academics, industries, trade or profession, (iii) One nominee of the Shista Parishad, (iv) One nominee of the Chairman, U. G. C. , (v) One nominee of the Government of India, (vi) Head of Department (one by seniority in rotation (vii) One nominee of the State Government, (viii) One nominee of the Vitta Samiti, (ix) Two teachers of which one from amongst Professors/readers and other from Lecturers to be nominated by Kuladhipati, (x) Four nominees of Jain Vishav Bharti, of which, one shall be a woman, and (xi) The Kulasachiva shall be the non-member Secretary.

The Board is empowered to manage conduct and administer all the affairs of the Institute not otherwise specially provided. The Board of Management is empowered to create, keep in abeyance or abolish teaching and academic posts, to determine the number, qualification, and cadres thereof, as appoint Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and other academic staff, paid or honorary, and the entire administrative and executive hierarchy of the Institute shows, that the Government of India, or the Government of Rajasthan, or the UGC are not having administrative or supervisory control over the administration of the Institute. The Society is getting aid from the U. G. C. for development purpose, only to the extent of 20-25% only, and the main sources to receive financial aid are the donors and not the Government or any of its agencies. Thus, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

In rejoinder it is contended that by virtue of definition given in Section 2 (f) of the Act, the Institute is a deemed University, and the Act is also applicable to the Institute. With this, it is pleaded, that according to Section 14 of the Act, it the obligation of the Institutes to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, and in the event of failure of the Institutes, the grant of funds to the Institutes can be withheld by the UGC. Then Section 20 of the Act postulates, that the Commission, in discharge of its functions under this Act, shall be guided, on the question of policy, relating to national purpose, as may be given to it by the Central Government, and the matters relating to policy are to be finally decided by the Central Government. Then, according to Section 22, Deemed University has been conferred power of conferring degrees; therefore, in the totality of circumstances, it is clear, that the deep and pervasive control of the Central Government,over the Institute is clearly apparent. It is also contended that the respondent is getting financial aid from the UGC the allocation and disbursement of fund of the U. G. C. depends upon the financial needs of the Institute, as per the provisions of Section 12 (a) and (cc) of the Act of 1956. Then according to the prospectus issued by the respondents, in item No. 6, under the caption "special Features" it has been mentioned, that the financial assistance was provided to the Institute by the U. G. C. for setting up two Yoga Centers, to offer theoretical and practical training, of Science of Living, Preksha Meditation & Yoga, and to build spiritual cum Scientific personality. It was also mentioned, but certain subjects of these centers are included in NET/jrf and SLET examinations, conducted by the UGC, and the State Government, respectively, and thus it as amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.)ARGUING the writ, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1), and contended, that since the respondent is receiving grant-in-aid from the U. G. C. it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It was also contended, on the basis of this authority, that whenever there is arbitrary action, Article 14 immediately springs into actin, and strikes down such an action, and therefore, in the present case this Court should interfere in the writ jurisdiction.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent on the authority of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli vs. Lakshmi Narain (2), contended that the respondent Institute stands at par with Vaish Degree College, and cannot be said to be an instrumentality of the State, so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction, Learned counsel also read to me para-90 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (3), and contended that what is required to be seen is, as to whether the "body" is mini-incarnation of the Government itself, and made up of its blood and bone and given corporate shape and status for defined objectives and not beyond. The device is too obvious for deception, a government company though, is but the alter ego of the Central Government and tearing of the juristic veil worn, would being out the true character of the entity being "the State". If judged on these parameters, the respondent cannot be said to be the "state" or "instrumentality of the State" within the meaning of the Article 12 or the incarceration of the Government, or its offspring, or depending upon the funds of the Government, and cannot be said to be amenable to writ jurisdiction.

In rejoinder it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned counsel for the respondent has read only minority judgment in Pradeep Kumar Case's case, inasmuch as, the case was decided by a Bench of seven Hon'ble Judges, and the majority judgment finishes at para 66, and from para 67 onwards is the minority judgment, and therefore, reliance on para 90 of the said judgment is wholly bad. Then learned counsel referred to para 42, 44, 48, 52, 55, 56 and 58 of the judgment in Pradeep Kumar's case. Learned counsel then relied upon para 16 of the judgment in Ajay Hasia's case, and also relied upon a Division bench judgment of this Court in Sudhir Ranjan vs. Birla Institute of Technology & Science (4), to contend, that once it is notified to be deemed university it is entitled to grants made by the Central Government under the Act, and can award degrees, and that the Central Government is entitled to conduct enquiry, if considers necessary, in respect of any matters connected with the Institute, and that the Institute is engaged in the matter of high public interest, and performing public functions, there is combination of State act and the performance of public service. Learned counsel then also relied upon judgments in. Dr. R. Sivaraman vs. The Registrar, Dr. M. G. R. Medical University, Guindi (5), Manmohan Singh vs. Commissioner Union Territory, Chandigarh (6), Chairman School of Budhist Philosophy, Leh, Ladakh vs. Makhan Lal Mattoo & Anr. (7), All India Sainik Schools Employees Association vs. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society, New Delhi (8), Master Vibhu Kapoor vs. Council of Indian School Certificate Examination (9), and Banasthali Vidyapeeth through Secretary vs. R. L. Gupta Learned counsel also cited a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma (Smt.) & Ors. vs. K. Devi & Ors. (11), to contend that since by virtue of issuance of notification under Section 3, within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Act the respondent becomes a University by legal fiction, it has to be taken to be University for all intent and purposes.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.