# Employees Welfare Association v. Union

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 741
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12643 of 2000
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/employees-welfare-association-v-union-40188
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Neeraj Tripathi
Sri U.N. Sharma
S.C.

(A) Practice & Procedure Interim Orderpassed by the Court-Comes to end
automatically
when
final
judgment
passed-fact
that
SLP
against
such
interim order dismissed-of no benefit to
petitioner.
1992 (4) Sec 401 relied upon.

Held-Para 5

The interim order dated 11.09.2002
automatically came to an end when the
judgment dated 13.05.2003 was passed.
Hence the petitioner cannot derive and
any benefit from the fact that the SLP
against the interim order was dismissed
by the Supreme Court.

(B) Educational Institution Affiliationcannot be granted to every institutioneach institution has to be considered
separately by concerned authority. -High
Court cannot pressur of the said
authority.

Held: paras 6 and 7.

It is not for this Court to grant affiliation.
The relevant authority under the U.P.
State Universities Act grant affiliation
and this Court cannot usurp the power of
the said authority.

We have already mentioned in our
judgment that merely because affiliation
was granted to other institutions, some
with retrospective effect, this does not
mean affiliation should also be granted
to the petitioner Each. Institution has to
be
considered
separately
by
the
concerned authority and not by this
court in the matter of grant of affiliation.
Case law discussed:
1991(3) SCC87; 1992 (4) Sec 401

## Text

3 All] M.D., Cooperative Bank & anr. V. Chairman, State Minorities Commission & others 741
(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. The Petitioner has challenged the
impugned
order
dated
8.5.2003
(Annexure-17 to the petition) and the
summons dated 4.6.2003 (Annexure-18 to
the petition).

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the order dated 8.5.2003 the
Chairman,
U.P.
State
Minorities
Commission has directed the U.P. Cooperative Bank, Bareilly to close the
disputed account.

3. Learned counsel for the U.P.
Minorities Commission Sri G.K. Singh
stated that the impugned order has been
withdrawn. Hence this petition has
become infructuous. However, we with to
clarify
that
the
U.P.
Minorities
Commission,
Backward
Caste
Commission
and
Scheduled
castes
Commission are only recommendatory
bodies
and
they
can
only
make
recommendations to the Government.

4. Unfortunately, we find that these
bodies are often going beyond their
jurisdiction by passing orders staying
termination
of
service
of
some
Government employee passing injunction
orders or closing the accounts etc. which
is not within their jurisdiction at all. These
Commissions should act within their
jurisdiction and not do as they release.

5. In All Indian Overseas Bank
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Employees Welfare Association vs. Union
of India, J.T. 1996 10 SC 287. The
Supreme
Court
observed
that
the
Scheduled Caste Commission has no
power of granting injunctions, whether
temporary or permanent. The powers of
the Minorities Commission are mentioned
in Section 9 of the U.P. Commission for
Minorities Act, 1994. Section 9 (c) speaks
of the power to make recommendations
for the effective implementation of
safeguards for the protection of the
interest
of
the
minorities
by
the
Government.

6. There is no clause is Section 9
which permits the Minorities Commission
to pass an order of the kind which has
been passed in this case. We therefore
direct
the
Minorities
Commission,
Scheduled
Caste
Commission
and
Backward Caste Commission that they
must
confine
themselves
to
their
jurisdiction and not pass orders beyond
their jurisdiction.

7. Let the Registrar General of this
Court send a copy of this order to the U.P.
Minorities Commission, U.P. Backward
Caste Commission and U.P. Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission
forthwith. Petition disposed off.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12643 of 2000

Himalay Ayurvedi Medical College and
another

...Petitioner
Versus
The Chancellor and others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri T.P. Singh
Sri Anupam Kumar
Sri Niraj Tiwari
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Sri K.S. Kushwaha
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri Kirtika Singh
Sri P.S. Baghel
Sri V.M. Zaidi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Neeraj Tripathi
Sri U.N. Sharma
S.C.

(A) Practice & Procedure Interim Orderpassed by the Court-Comes to end
automatically
when
final
judgment
passed-fact
that
SLP
against
such
interim order dismissed-of no benefit to
petitioner.
1992 (4) Sec 401 relied upon.

Held-Para 5

The interim order dated 11.09.2002
automatically came to an end when the
judgment dated 13.05.2003 was passed.
Hence the petitioner cannot derive and
any benefit from the fact that the SLP
against the interim order was dismissed
by the Supreme Court.

(B) Educational Institution Affiliationcannot be granted to every institutioneach institution has to be considered
separately by concerned authority. -High
Court cannot pressur of the said
authority.

Held: paras 6 and 7.

It is not for this Court to grant affiliation.
The relevant authority under the U.P.
State Universities Act grant affiliation
and this Court cannot usurp the power of
the said authority.

We have already mentioned in our
judgment that merely because affiliation
was granted to other institutions, some
with retrospective effect, this does not
mean affiliation should also be granted
to the petitioner Each. Institution has to
be
considered
separately
by
the
concerned authority and not by this
court in the matter of grant of affiliation.
Case law discussed:
1991(3) SCC87; 1992 (4) Sec 401

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This is an application for
Review/Recall of our judgment dated
13.05.2003.

2. It has been stated in the
application that the Court did not
considered various submission of the
petitioner in the aforesaid judgment. We
do not agree.

3. It has been clearly stated in the
aforesaid judgment dated 13.05.2003 that
the petitioner was granted affiliation to
the
Kanpur
University
only
from
01.07.1996 to 30.06.1998.

4. It has been contended that an
interim order was passed in this case on
11.09.2002 that the students of the
petitioner no. 1 shall be permitted to
appear in the examination and their result
will be declared. Against that interim
order an SLP has been dismissed by the
Supreme Court.

5. In our opinion and appeal is a
continuation of the original proceedings.
The interim order dated 11.09.2002
automatically came to an end when the
judgment dated 13.05.2003 was passed.
Hence the petitioner cannot derive and
any benefit from the fact that the SLP
against the interim order was dismissed
by the Supreme Court.

6. It is not for this Court to grant
affiliation. The relevant authority under
the U.P. State Universities Act grant
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Himalaya Ayurvedic Medical College and another V. The Chancellor, and others
743
affiliation and this Court cannot usurp the
power of the said authority.

7. We have already mentioned in our
judgment that merely because affiliation
was granted to other institutions, some
with retrospective effect, this does not
mean affiliation should also be granted to
the petitioner Each. institution has to be
considered separately by the concerned
authority and not by this court in the
matter of grant of affiliation.

8. No Doubt we have held in
Committee of Management v. Chancellor
in Writ Petition No. (M/B) 5881 of 2002
decided on 11.11.2002 by the Lucknow
Bench of this Court that either permanent
affiliation should be granted or the
application for affiliation should be
rejected, but grant of temporary or
provisional affiliation is not legal. This
however, does not improve the case of the
petitioner in any way. It is not for this
Court to grant affiliation, as that the
function of the concerned authority under
the Act.

9. It was entirely the petitioners'
fault that it admitted students or continued
them
before
01.07.1996
and
after
30.06.1998. In State of Tamil Nadu V. St.
Joseph Teachers Training Institute, 1991
(3) SCC 87 the Supreme Court observed
vide paragraph 6:-

"6.
The
practice
of
admitting
students
by
unauthorized
education
institutions and then seeking permission
for permitting the students to appear at the
examination
has
been
looked
with
disfavour
by
this
Court.
In
N.M.Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P.
this Court observed that if permission was
granted to the students of an unrecognized
institutions to appear at the examinations,
it would amount to encouraging and
condoning
the
establishment
of
unauthorized
institutions.
The
court
declared that the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article32 or of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution
should not be frittered away for such a
purpose.
In
A.P.Christians
Medical
Educational Society v. Government of
A.P. a similar request made of behalf of
the institution and the students for
permitting
them
to
appear
at
the
examination even though affiliation had
not been granted, was rejected by this
Court. The Court observed that any
direction of the nature sought for
permitting the students to appear at the
examination without the institution being
affiliated or recognized would be in clear
transgression of the provision of the Act
and the regulations. The court cannot be a
party to direct the students to disobey the
statute as that would be destructive of the
rule of law. The Full Bench noted these
decisions and observations and yet it
granted
relief
to
the
students
on
humanitarian grounds. Court cannot grant
relief to a party on humanitarian grounds
contrary to law. Since the students of
unrecognized institutions were legally not
entitled to appear at the examination held
by the Education Department of the
government, the High Court acted in
violation of law in granting permission to
such students for appearing at the public
examination. The directions issued by the
Full Bench are destructive of the rule of
law. Since the Division Bench issued the
impugned orders following the judgment
of the Full Bench, the impugned orders
are not sustainable in law."

10. In Guru Nanak Dev University
v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and others 1992
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
(4)
SCC
401the
Supreme
Court
observed:-

"We are afraid that this kind of
administration of interlocutory remedies,
more guided by sympathy quite often
wholly misplaced, does no service to
anyone. From the series of orders that
keep coming before us in academic
matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived
sympathy masquerades as interlocutory
justice exposing judicial discretion to the
criticism of degenerating into private
benevolence.
This
is
subversive
of
academic discipline, or whatever is left of
it, leading to serious impasse in academic
life. Admissions cannot be ordered
without regard to the eligibility of the
candidates. Decisions on matters relevant
to
be
taken
into
account
at
the
interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or
decided later when serious complications
might ensue from the interim order itself.
In the present case, the High Court was
apparently moved by sympathy for the
candidates than by an accurate assessment
of even the prima facie legal position.
Such orders cannot be allowed to stand.
The court should not embarrass academic
authorities by themselves taking over
their functions."

11. There is no force in this
petitioner and it is rejected.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J.
THE HON'BLE M. CHOUDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2464 of 1980

Gainda Alias Govardhan and Others

 ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
The State

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri G.S. Chaturvedi
Sri R.S. Yadav
Sri P.C. Tewari

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal
Trail-Benefit
of
doubt-FIR
antiedated-infirmities and incongruities
in the prosecution" case and evidencefindings of the trail court based on
incorrect
reading
of
evidence
and
grounds which are not tenable -not safe
to hold accused appellants guilty of
charges leveled against them - appeal
allowed -accused acquitted of charges
leveled against them.

Held: Para 21 and 22

In
view
of
above
infirmities
and
incongruities in the prosecution case and
evidence, it would not be safe to hold
any of the accused appellants guilty of
the charge leveled against them, and
they are entitled to benefit of doubt.

The appeal is allowed and the findings of
conviction
and
sentence
recorded
against
the
accused
appellants
are
hereby set aside. The accused are hereby
acquitted of the charge leveled against
them.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in