# Anand College of Education, Agra v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 835
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-07-19
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-college-of-education-agra-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-41971
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act
1973-Section-37
(a)-De-affiliation
of
Degree
College-without
notice
opportunity-universities
send
for
approval-held-wholly misconceived and
illegal-surprised enough if de-affiliation
already approved without enquiry-after
that entire exercise remains wholly
worthless-order
impugned
can
not
sustain-consequential direction given.

Held: Para 10

In view of the above, keeping in view
the fact that before sending the matter
to
the
State
Government,
the
respondent University has not held any
inquiry after due compliance of principle
of
natural
justice
and
providing
opportunity to the petitioners to defend
their cause, the impugned order passed
by the State Government seems to be
not sustainable and is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The
writ
petitions
deserve
to
be
allowed.

## Text

2 All] Anand College of Education, Agra V. The State of U.P. and others
835
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.07.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.

Misc. Single no. - 4070 of 2011

Anand College of Edu., 19. K.M Mile
Stone Agra

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P Thru Secy., Deptt., of
Higher Edu., and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C
Sri Anurag Verma
Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi

Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act
1973-Section-37
(a)-De-affiliation
of
Degree
College-without
notice
opportunity-universities
send
for
approval-held-wholly misconceived and
illegal-surprised enough if de-affiliation
already approved without enquiry-after
that entire exercise remains wholly
worthless-order
impugned
can
not
sustain-consequential direction given.

Held: Para 10

In view of the above, keeping in view
the fact that before sending the matter
to
the
State
Government,
the
respondent University has not held any
inquiry after due compliance of principle
of
natural
justice
and
providing
opportunity to the petitioners to defend
their cause, the impugned order passed
by the State Government seems to be
not sustainable and is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The
writ
petitions
deserve
to
be
allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P.Singh,J.)

1 .In these bunch of fresh writ
petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, common questions
of law are involved hence the writ
petitions are decided by the present
common judgment. Learned counsel for
the parties are agree that the petitions be
decided at the admission stage. Sri J.N.
Mathur, learned Senior Counsel and
Additional Advocate General, appeared
for respondent University and submits
that the petitions be decided on substantial
question of law involved in these writ
petitions and it is not necessary to file
response to the allegations on record,
which may be looked into by the
respondent University at the time of
holding inquiry.

2. While assailing the impugned
orders
dated
14.7.2011,
petitioners
counsel submit that the respondent
University has taken a decision to deaffiliate the petitioners for extraneous
reasons. It is also alleged that the Deputy
Registrar is holding the charge of the
Office and he is managing the affairs of
the respondent University for extraneous
consideration and reasons. However,
without entering into the mala fide and
other factual averments contained in the
writ petitions, I leave it open to the
petitioners to raise at appropriate forum in
future, as the writ petitions are decided on
the pure question of law.

3. While assailing the impugned
orders, it has been submitted by the
petitioners counsel that no opportunity of
hearing was provided to the petitioners.
No any material or document was
supplied giving opportunity to rebut those
evidence which are the foundation for
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
referring
the
matter
to
the
State
Government for approval to de-affiliate
the colleges.

4. Attention has been invited to subsection (8) and (9) of Section 37 of Uttar
Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973,
which is reproduced as under:

"37. Affiliated Colleges.--(8) The
privileges of affiliation of a college which
fails to comply with any direction of the
Executive Council under sub-section (7)
or to fulfil the conditions of affiliation
may, after obtaining a report from the
Management of the college and with the
previous
sanction
of
the
[State
Government], be withdrawn or curtailed
by the Executive Council in accordance
with the provisions of the Statutes.

(9)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-sections (2) and (8), if
the Management of an affiliated colleges
has failed to fulfil the conditions of
affiliation, the [State Government] may,
after
obtaining
a
report
from
the
Management and the Vice-Chancellor,
withdraw or curtail the privileges of
affiliation.]"

5. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
order has been passed under sub-section
(9) of Section 37 of the Act without
providing opportunity of hearing or
inquiry. Hence the order is not sustainable.
On the other hand, Sri J.N. Mathur, learned
Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate
General, submits that the order has been
passed in pursuance of powers conferred
under sub-section (8) of Section 37 of the
Act and the State Government had granted
approval and now, the University shall
take decision with regard to petitioner's
fate after holding due inquiry. Submission
of Sri J.N. Mathur is that inquiry shall be
held in accordance with law with due
opportunity to the petitioner. It has been
submitted that after grant of approval by
the State Government, an inquiry may be
held by the respondent University.

6. On the other hand, Sri I. B. Singh,
learned Senior Advocate, raises two-fold
arguments. Firstly, that the order has been
passed by the State Government under subsection (9) of Section 37 of the Act and
secondly, the inquiry should be held before
sending
the
matter
to
the
State
Government. Sri Manish Kumar learned
counsel raises same plea as raised by Sri I.
B. Singh learned Senior Advocate.

7. After considering the arguments, I
am of the opinion that sub-section (8) of
Section 37 of the Act empowered to take
action
against
the
Committee
of
Management with regard to affiliation. In
case it is found by the Executive Council
that there is violation of terms and
conditions with regard to affiliation, then
after
due
approval
from
the
State
Government, the colleges may be deaffiliated. However, while sending the
matter to the State Government under subsection (8) of Section 37 of the Act, the
letter and spirit of the provisions is to hold
an inquiry with due compliance of
principle of natural justice and record
finding. Only thereafter, the matter may be
sent to the State Government for approval.
The purpose of sending the matter to State
Government is two fold. Firstly, the entire
material and finding recorded against the
Management, must be before the State
Government so that the State Government
may either approve or disapprove the
proposal of the University. In case the
State Government approves, then the only
2 All] Anand College of Education, Agra V. The State of U.P. and others
837
course with the University is to pass the
order with regard to de-affiliation. The
submission of Sri J.N. Mathur, seems to be
not correct that the University may hold
inquiry after receipt of approval from the
State Government. In case the argument of
Sri J. N. Mathur is accepted, then it shall
amount to violation not only of the
principles of natural justice, but it shall
deprive the State Government to have a
look with regard to the material calling for
de-affiliation
of
the
Committee
of
Management. The State Government must
be informed with all the material with
regard to proposal sent by the University
for de-affiliation of a college. The
University while sending the proposal,
shall also record its own finding against the
Committee of Management. The purpose
of the sub-section (8) of Section 37 is to
check the arbitrary use of power by the
University. Of course, in case the decision
taken by the State Government is not in
accordance with law or is an incident of
arbitrary exercise of power, then it is open
for the University to approach the higher
judiciary for judicial review against the
action of the State Government.

8. Now, coming to sub-section (9)
Section of Section 37 of the Act. The subsection
(9)
starts
with
the
word,
"Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-sections (2) and (8)", meaning thereby,
the
power
conferred
on
the
State
Government to consider for de-affiliation
of Management is independent than the
power of the University. The Government
may take action in case the Management of
an affiliated college has failed to fulfil the
condition of affiliation and in such
situation, after obtaining report from the
Management and the Vice-chancellor,
withdraw or curtail the privilege of
affiliation. Here the decision of the State
Government is also subject to material
supplied by the vice-Chancellor of the
University concerned and explanation
given by the Committee of Management.
While exercising power under sub-section
(9) of Section 37 of the Act, it shall always
be obligatory on the part of the State
Government to obtain explanation from the
Committee of Management and also
obtained
a
report
from
the
ViceChancellor. In case the report submitted by
the Vice-Chancellor satisfies the State
Government, that sufficient material exists
with regard to withdraw or curtail the
privilege of affiliation, then the State
Government may pass appropriate order.
The power of the State Government under
sub-section (9) of Section 37 of the Act, is
independent than the power conferred on
the University under sub-section (8) of
Section 37 of the Act, subject to
compliance of principle of natural justice.

9. The impugned order at the face of
record say that it has been passed on the
basis of letter sent by the University dated
12.7.2011 and in the concluding portion,
the State Government directed to take
further action against the Committee of
management. In case the action would
have been taken under sub-section (9) of
Section 37 of the Act, then there was no
occasion for the State Government to
direct the respondent University to take
further action in the matter keeping in view
the approval granted by the Government.
The
Government
was
competent
to
withdraw or curtail the privilege of
affiliation under sub-section (9) of Section
37 of the Act. Accordingly, the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to this extent seems to be
misconceived and not sustainable.
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

10. In view of the above, keeping in
view the fact that before sending the matter
to the State Government, the respondent
University has not held any inquiry after
due compliance of principle of natural
justice and providing opportunity to the
petitioners to defend their cause, the
impugned order passed by the State
Government seems to be not sustainable
and is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The writ petitions
deserve to be allowed.

11. The writ petitions are accordingly
allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the impugned order dated
14.7.2011 contained in Annexure No.1 to
the writ petitions with all consequential
benefits. Keeping in view the seriousness
of the allegations on record, the respondent
University is directed to hold inquiry in
accordance with law keeping in view the
observations
made
hereinabove
expeditiously say within two weeks from
today. Sri J. N. Mathur is agree that the
inquiry shall be concluded within two
weeks.

12. During the course of hearing I
have been informed that in the respondent
University, since one and half year, there is
no regular Registrar. It has been submitted
by the respondents counsel that the
Registrar has already been appointed. In
case the Registrar has not been appointed,
the
respondents
shall
ensure
the
appointment of Regular Registrar in
accordance with Rules within a month.

The
writ
petition
is
allowed
accordingly.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN,J.
THE HON,BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6827 of 2010

Shiv Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jamal Ali
Sri Adil Jamal
Sri Satish Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Promotion-Disciplinary
ProceedingsPetitioner working as Junior Engineereligible
for
promotion-Departmental
Promotional
Committee-considering
disciplinary
proceedings
kept
decision
under seal cover-in the year 2008-200906.04.09 inquiry officer exhonerated from
all charges-duly accepted by Govt. on
16.04.2009-commission refuse to open the
seal on ground fresh inquiry set up heldunless charge sheet submitted seal cover
procedure
can
not
be
restoredconsequential directions given.

Held: Para 9

In the aforesaid facts, in our view, the writ
petition deserves to be allowed and it is
accordingly allowed. The respondent no.3
is directed to open the sealed cover with
regard to the promotion of the petitioner
and implement the recommendation of the
Departmental
Promotional
Committee
within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall also be entitled all
consequential benefits, including payment
of arrears of salary, if any, to which he may