# Sardar Patel Institute of Technology v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 670
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No.2903 (MS) of 2012
- **Bench:** S.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sardar-patel-institute-of-technology-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42251
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

3. A perusal of workman's application
dated 20th February, 1991, a copy whereof
has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ
petition, it is evident that the workman
claimed that a sum of Rs.1,70,500/- became
due to him from 1986 to 1990 against which
he had received Rs.70,187/- and therefore
remaining unpaid amount of Rs.1,00,313/-,
which he claimed, is due to him. The
petitioner-employer in their reply, copy
whereof is Annexure 3 to the writ petition,
has clearly shown that whatever amount due
to the workman was already paid and the
amount he has claimed, no basis thereof has
been given and the said amount was not
payable to him. Without looking into the
dispute about actual claim set up by the
workman, in a mechanical manner and
without application of mind the Deputy
Labour Commissioner has issued recovery
certificate which is more than the amount
actually claimed by the workman and
recovery certificate of such an amount
could not have been issued. The said
recovery certificate is ex facie illegal and
cannot sustain.

4. It is true that Section 6-H(1) of Act
1947 is in the nature of execution but it
presupposes an amount due. Whenever
there is dispute as to whether an amount is
due or not or about the quantum of such
amount, the authority concerned cannot
treat the claim of workman to be sacrosanct
for issuing recovery certificate but has to
apply its mind and record a finding that the
amount is due after considering the case set
up by the employer in this regard and it is
under an obligation in such a circumstance
to pass a speaking order determining as to
what is an amount due for which recovery
certificate has to be issued. It a mechanical
manner it cannot issue a recovery certificate
for an amount claimed by the workman
particularly when correctness of quantum
and the claim set up by the workman is
disputed by the employer otherwise it
would amount to issuing a recovery
certificate ex parte without considering the
claim of the other side on merits. A
statutory authority cannot be permitted to
proceed in such a matter as that would
amount to misuse of power and would
result in travesty of justice.

5. The writ petition is allowed. The
recovery
certificate
dated
21.10.1991
(Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) issued
by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P.
Meerut Region, Meerut is hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded to the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Meerut Region,
Meerut to reconsider the matter and first of
all he will decide the question whether any
amount is due and payable to the workman
concerned and only thereafter after passing
the speaking order on this aspect, shall issue
recovery certificate, if any required.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.06.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.S. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ Petition No.2903 (MS) of 2012

Sardar Patel Institute of Technology

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Opp. Parties

Constitution of India, Article 226-writ of
mandamus-direction
to
allow
the
student
to
appear
in
B.Ed
courseexamination
2012-admittedly
the
institution was granted affiliation for 200
students-temporarily approval granted
by
unauthorized
person-canceledinstitution admitted 44 excess students
without any authority-held-in view of
direction
of
Laxmi
Sharma
Case-in
2 All] Sardar Patel Institute of Technology V. State of U.P. and others
671
absence of affiliation-institution acted
illegally admitting 48 students-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para 15

In the said case the students were
allowed to appear in the examination as
they were admitted. Since in the present
case, the students were not validly
admitted after affiliation, therefore, they
cannot be allowed to appear in the
examination. The petitioner, therefore,
has failed to make out a case for
interference.
There
has
been
no
affiliation from the examining body. In
absence of affiliation, the petitioner was
not entitled to admit the students and
anyhow if any mistake was committed
by the Agra University, that will not
entitle the petitioner to claim any parity
or any illegal parity is supposed to grant
indulgence in favour of the petitioner. It
appears that by mistake 48 students
were admitted illegally by the petitioner,
whereas recognition was only in respect
of 200 seats. Therefore, I find no
illegality in the order passed by the
opposite party no.3.
Case law discussed:
(2006) 9 SCC 1; (2012) 2 SCC 425; (2011) 4
SCC 527; (2000) 5 SCC 231; (1995) 4 SCC
104; (2011) 4 SCC 527; (2012) 1 UPLBEC 312;
AIR 2001 Delhi 154; (2004) 4 SCC 513; (2003)
9 SCC 564

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This petition has been filed with
the prayer for quashing the order dated
9.5.2012 passed by the opposite party no.3
and further with the prayer of mandamus
commanding the State Government to
direct the opposite party no.2 to allow 48
students admitted by the petitionerinstitution on vacant seats in B.Ed. session
2008-09 to appear in the University
examination, which is going to be held in
the month of June, 2012 in terms of the
Government Order dated 30.9.2011.

2. The facts in short are that the
petitioner-
Sardar
Patel
Institute
of
Technology (for short 'the petitionerinstitution') is a self financed unaided
private educational institution established
by a registered charitable trust. The
National Council for Teacher Education (
for short 'the Council') a statutory body of
the Government of India granted affiliation
to the petitioner- institution under Section
14(3) (a) of the National Council for
Teacher Education Act (for short 'the Act')
for conducting B.Ed. course of one year
duration for 100 seats from academic
session 2002-03. In pursuance to the
aforesaid permission granted by the
Council, the Chaudhary Charan Singh
University, Meerut (for short 'the Meerut
University') granted affiliation to the
petitioner-institution to run B.Ed. course
with annual intake of 100 seats from
academic session 2002-03. The petitioner-
institution thereafter applied for 100 more
seats and the Council vide letter dated
13.8.2007 granted recognition for 100
additional seats to the petitioner-institution
under Section 15(3) (a) of the Act and the
Meerut University in pursuance thereof by
means of letter dated 18.3.2008 granted
permanent affiliation in respect of the
additional 100 seats. The petitionerinstitution
thereafter
applied
for
enhancement of 100 more seats on
29.2.2008, on which the Meerut University
constituted an inspection committee for the
purpose of conducting inspection for grant
of affiliation for 100 additional seats
though recommendation was made by the
Council for grant of recognition for 100
additional seats (300 seats) w.e.f. 1.7.2006
vide
letter
dated
19.3.2008.
After
inspection of the petitioner-institution on
12.3.2008, the Meerut University vide
letter dated 19.3.2008 recommended the
case of the petitioner-institution for grant
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
of affiliation for 100 additional seats w.e.f.
1.7.2006.
The
recommendation
was
forwarded by the Meerut University on
Proforma 'A' to the State Government. The
Assistant Registrar of the University, who
was given the charge of the Registrar for
one day, proceeded to grant provisional
affiliation to the petitioner- institution on
14.7.2009 along with three others in
respect of 100 additional seats. It is stated
that the Assistant Registrar has been
proceeded departmentally and action has
been taken against him and the affiliation
granted by him in respect of four
institutions has been cancelled as it was
obtained in collusion with the said officer,
who was having no authority under law to
grant
affiliation
and
the
competent
authority to grant affiliation is the ViceChancellor,
which
is
evident
from
Annexure No.1 dated 9.5.2012, which is
under challenge. For the academic session
2008-09 counseling for B.Ed. course was
conducted by the Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar
University, Agra (for short 'the Agra
University') and the petitioner-institution
was
allowed
to
participate
in
the
counselling with the sanctioned strength of
300 (200+100) seats. Agra University held
three rounds of counselling for the session
2008-09 to fill the seats in all B.Ed.
Colleges in the State of U.P. and the
petitioner-institution was allotted only 170
students in first and second rounds of
counselling and 74 students in the third
round of counselling thereby allotting total
244 students. When the Agra University
did not allot the students as per the total
sanctioned strength, petitioner- institution
wrote letters to the opposite parties on
27.1.2010, 17.2.2010 and then admitted 48
more students on the basis of merit, who
have qualified in the entrance examination
of B.Ed. 2008-09 and secured 50% marks
in Graduation and these students were
admitted in pursuance to the advertisement
published in the newspapers inviting
applications from eligible students, who
had qualified the entrance examinations of
B.Ed. 2008-09. The petitioner-institution
sent information to the Meerut University
vide letters dated 12.3.2010 and 27.5.2010
about admission of 48 students in the
B.Ed. Course and under assumption that
approval has been accorded, it allowed the
students to complete their studies and they
had also attended the requisite number of
classes as per the requirement. The State
Government vide order dated 30.9.2011
took a decision that the examination of
those students be held, who were given
admission by the private institutions on
their own as per the procedure prescribed
in the Government Order dated 12.8.2008.
When the Meerut University did not permit
the students admitted by the petitioner
institution, they filed Writ Petition bearing
No.7349 (MS) of 2011 before this Court,
in which it was directed that in case the
students admitted by the petitionerinstitution
are
covered
under
the
Government Orders dated 12.8.2008 and
30.9.2011, the opposite parties shall permit
them
to
appear
in
the
University
examination for B.Ed. Course 2008-09 as
and when the same is going to be held. The
Meerut
University
conducted
the
examination for B.Ed. Course 2008-09
from 6.1.2012 and did not allow 48
students admitted by the petitionerinstitution on its own after not adopting the
procedure prescribed in the aforesaid
Government
Orders.
The
petitionerinstitution again applied for permanent
affiliation from session 2010-11 for 300
seats and when the State Government did
not take any decision in the matter, the
petitioner-institution filed Writ Petition
No.6057 (MS) of 2008, which was finally
disposed of by this Court vide order darted
2 All] Sardar Patel Institute of Technology V. State of U.P. and others
673
6.8.2010 with a direction to the State
Government to consider the matter for
grant of permanent affiliation within two
weeks. In pursuance to the order of this
Court
dated
6.8.2010,
the
State
Government vide order dated 29.11.2010
rejected the matter of the petitioner for
grant of permanent affiliation for 300 seats
from
academic
session
2010-11.
In
pursuance to the aforesaid order, the ViceChancellor of the Meerut University
proceeded to pass the consequential order
refusing to grant affiliation to the
petitioner- institution vide order 9.5.2012.
Hence this petition.

3. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that in view of the
promulgation of the Act, which is a Central
Act, the requirement of affiliation is not
contemplated under law and if any such
condition has been laid down by the State
Government, then the same is ultra-vires
and does not have any recognition and
cannot prevail over the Central Act. He
further
submits
that
while
granting
recognition, all the requirements were
complied
with
and
so
the
State
Government cannot impose any additional
requirements for grant of affiliation. The
rejection of the affiliation is wholly illegal
and cannot be held to be a valid action
under law on account of the fact that the
recognition granted by the Council is final.
It is also submitted that the affiliation was
granted by the Assistant Registrar vide
order dated 14.7.2009 and, therefore, the
petitioner cannot be made to suffer as they
acted bona fidely on the basis of the said
affiliation,
which
was
granted
provisionally and the students admitted by
the petitioner, have been admitted on the
basis of the Government Orders dated
12.8.2008 and 30.9.2011 on the basis of
advertisement made in the newspapers as
the Agra University failed to provide
students to the petitioner-institution, which
was
the
University
conducting
the
counselling. It is further submitted that on
the basis of the order of this Court at
Allahabad in Writ Petition No.59661 of
2008, wherein an order was passed to the
effect that in case the students are available
in the select list prepared by the Kanpur
University, Kanpur itself, the counselling
may be held so that the institutions, which
are eligible either under the orders of this
Court
or
otherwise
may
be
given
opportunity of counselling and students as
per the sanctioned strength of the
institution by the NCTE be allotted, to
such institution, the students were to be
allotted, but it is stated that no such
students were allotted. The said writ
petition was got dismissed as having
become
infructuous
on
9.12.2011.
Submission, therefore, is that 48 students,
who have been admitted by the petitionerinstitution are entitled to appear in the
University examinations, which are going
to be held in the month of June, 2012. In
support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the following decisions:-

"(1) State of Maharashtra vs. Sant
Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan
Shastra
Mahavidyalaya and others, (2006) 9 SCC 1;

Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and
others, vs. Subhash Rahangdale and
others, (2012) 2 SCC 425;

Chairman, Bhartia Education Society
and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, (2011) 4 SCC 527 ;

Jaya Gokul Educational Trust vs. The
Commissioner & Secretary to Government
Higher
Education
Department,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and
another (2000) 5 SCC 231;
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

State of Tamil Nadu and another vs.
Adhiyaman Educational and Research
Institute and others, (1995) 4 SCC 104;

4. Counsel for the opposite parties,
on the other hand, has submitted that the
petitioner has not approached this Court
with clean hands and they have concealed
certain material facts, which are necessary
to be brought on record. He has further
submitted that the Assistant Registrar was
given the charge of Registrar for one day
and he granted provisional recognition in
respect of four institutions. He has been
proceeded departmentally and action has
been taken against him and the four
provisional
affiliations,
which
were
granted by him, were held to be invalid
and were cancelled and they were not
given effect under law. The inspection was
made by the inspection team and various
short comings were found, on account of
which the inspection team recommended
to the State Government and the State
Government found that the petitionerinstitution does not conform to the
requirements
as
contemplated
for
affiliation and so it proceeded to reject the
affiliation to the petitioner-institution vide
order
dated
29.11.2010.
The
ViceChancellor in consequence thereof passed
the impugned order on 9.5.2012 refusing to
grant affiliation under Section 37(2) of the
U.P. State Universities Act. The petitioner
was never granted affiliation for additional
100 seats and the recommendation made
by the inspection team did not conform to
the requirements, which were required
under law. The position of appointment of
teachers in respect of additional 100 seats
was not clear and the inspection team also
made a request that the inspection be made
by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr so
as to assess the correct position of the
infrastructure and other requirements. The
students were never admitted on the basis
of the merit as contemplated under the
Government Orders dated 12.8.2008 and
30.9.2011 and an advertisement was made
in the newspapers and on that basis the
students were admitted. It is, therefore,
submitted that since there was no
recognition,
the
institution
was
not
authorized under law to admit the students.
When the petitioners failed in their
attempt, then 38 students of the petitionerinstitution approached this Court at
Allahabad
by
filing
Writ
Petition
No.39931 of 2011, Khushboo Rai and
others vs. State of U.P. and others, in
which the parties were asked file counter
affidavit and no interim order was granted.
In the said case on 17.10.2011 further
order was passed and the Court also
wanted to know as to whether the
institution
in
question
was
granted
affiliation or not by the State Government
under Section 37(2) of the U.P. State
Universities Act. Thereafter, another Writ
Petition No.2660 (MS) of 2011 was filed
by the 45 students of the petitionerinstitution before this Court at Lucknow
and this Court vide order dated 10.5.2011
rejected the application for interim relief
by a detailed order. The said writ petition
was thereafter got dismissed as having
become infructuous on 2.1.2012. The
submission is that after having failed in all
tactics, the petitioner has approached this
Court as a last resort concealing material
facts and made a prayer to allow its
students to appear in the examination.
Therefore, the said relief cannot be granted
by this Court. In support of his contention,
he has placed reliance upon the following
decisions:-

"Chairman,
Bhartiya
Education
Society and another vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others, (2011) 4 SCC 527;
2 All] Sardar Patel Institute of Technology V. State of U.P. and others
675

Shri
Morvi
Sarvajanik
Kelavni
Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College
vs.
National
Council
for
Teachers'
Education and others (2012) 1 UPLBEC
312;

Rahul Dhaka Vikas Society and
another
vs.
Guru
Gobind
Singh
Indraprastha University and others, AIR
2001 Delhi 154;

State of Tamil Nadu and another vs.
S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and others (2004) 4
SCC 513;

State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K.
Purushotham Reddy and others, (2003) 9
SCC 564."

5. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioner initially applied for
grant of recognition of 100 seats to the
Council and the recognition was granted in
respect of 100 seats by the Council on
5.12.2002 and the affiliation was granted
to the petitioner on 27.3.2003. The
petitioner thereafter applied for additional
100 seats and vide letter dated 13.8.2007
recognition was granted to the petitionerinstitution for additional 100 seats by the
Council and affiliation was granted by the
Meerut
University
vide
letter
dated
18.3.2008. The petitioner thereafter applied
for 100 additional seats after 200, on which
the Meerut University vide letter dated
10.3.2008
constituted
an
inspection
committee for conducting inspection for
affiliation
of
100
additional
seats
(200+100) and in pursuance thereof the
inspection team conducted the inspection
on 12.3.2008. The Meerut University also
forwarded the recommendation on Form
'A' on 26.4.2008. The main thrust of the
argument of counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner was granted provisional
recognition vide order dated 14.7.2009
and, therefore, it was entitled to take
admission for the 100 additional seats and
these admissions were taken only when the
Agra University failed to allocate the
students to the petitioner-institution after
244 students in the first, second and third
rounds of counselling. The petitioner
thereafter wrote letters to the Agra
University for allocation of more students
vide letters dated 27.1.2010 and 17.2.2010
and when the Agra University failed to
allocate the students, then the petitioner
made an advertisement in two newspapers
and admitted 48 students on the basis of
the Government Orders dated 12.8.2008
and 30.9.2011. It has to be seen as to
whether the aforesaid admissions were
made on the basis of merit or not. There is
no pleading in the writ petition that
admissions were made out of the select list
prepared
by
the
Agra
University
conducting the counselling. The students
were admitted, who responded to the
advertisement and the question of merit as
contemplated under the Government Order
dated 12.8.2008 was given go bye. Apart
from it, the right to admission of students
was vested with the petitioner-institution
only after there was affiliation by the
University.
However,
there
was
no
affiliation by the University and only a
provisional affiliation was obtained by the
petitioner fraudulently from the Assistant
Registrar, who was given the charge of the
Registrar for one day and he granted
provisional recognition in respect of four
institutions. He was proceeded with
departmentally and action has been taken
against him and the recognition granted by
him has been cancelled. The petitioner
thereafter
preferred
Writ
Petition
No.59661 of 2008 at Allahabad in which
the petitioner did not implead the Meerut
University from where the question of
affiliation could have been verified and got
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
an interim order in its favour on
19.12.2008, wherein it was provided that
in case the students are available in the
select list prepared by the Kanpur
University, Kanpur itself, the counselling
may be held so that the institutions, which
are eligible either under the orders of this
Court
or
otherwise
may
be
given
opportunity of counselling, but it has to be
seen that the petitioner was not qualified
under law to admit the students and,
therefore, the said order was not applicable
in case of the petitioner and neither the
petitioner has come forward to say that the
admissions were made by the petitioner on
the basis of the said order. The said writ
petition was got dismissed having become
infructuous on 9.12.2011. The petitioner
thereafter obtained another device by filing
Writ Petition No.39931 of 2011 through its
students to get an interim order seeking
prayer to appear in the examination. In the
said writ petition, counter affidavit was
called for and thereafter on 17.10.2011 an
order was passed by this Court at
Allahabad wherein the Court emphasized
as to whether the institution was affiliated
under Section 37(2) of the U.P. State
Universities Act or not. The petitioner
thereafter adopted another device and filed
Writ Petition No.2660 (MS) of 2011 on
behalf of the 45 students and this Court
vide order dated 10.5.2011 rejected the
interim relief application. The said writ
petition was got dismissed having become
infructuous on 2.1.2012. Having failed in
all its tactics either on behalf of the
students or itself, the petitioner has
approached this Court again by means of
the present writ petition claiming therein
that affiliation is not required under law.
The inspection committee pointed out
certain short comings on account of which
the State Government took a decision on
10.2.2012 declining permission in respect
of 100 seats. The inspection committee
reported that the District Magistrate was
asked to give information, who reported
that infrastructure for appointment of
teachers in respect of the additional 100
seats after 200 seats was not clear and so it
was decided not to grant affiliation vide
order
dated
29.11.2010.
The
ViceChancellor, Meerut University passed an
order dated 9.5.2012 refusing to grant
affiliation to the petitioner in pursuance to
the order of this Court dated 5.12.2011
passed in Writ petition No.7349 of 2011 as
the students were not admitted on the basis
of the merit of the select list prepared by
the Agra University.

7. The argument advanced by the
counsel for the petitioner in respect of
question of non-requirement of affiliation
cannot be accepted in view of the law laid
down by the apex Court in the case of Sant
Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan
Shastra
Mahavidyalaya (supra).

8. The apex court in a recent
judgment in the case of Chairman,
Bhartiya Education Society (supra), drew
the difference between recognition and
affiliation and came to the conclusion that
examining body can impose its own
requirement in regard to eligibility of
students for admission to a course in
addition to those prescribed by the NCTE.
The recognition order was also relied upon
and interpreted by the apex court. In Paras22 and 24 of the said judgment, the apex
court observed as under:

"22. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 no
doubt mandates every examining body to
grant affiliation to the institution on receipt
of the order of NCTE granting recognition
to such institution. This only means that
recognition is a condition precedent for
2 All] Sardar Patel Institute of Technology V. State of U.P. and others
677
affiliation and that the examining body
does not have any discretion to refuse
affiliation with reference to any of the
factors which have been considered by
NCTE while granting recognition. For
example, NCTE is required to satisfy itself
about the adequate financial resources,
accommodation, library, qualified staff,
and laboratory required for proper
functioning of an institution for a course or
training in teacher education. Therefore,
when recognition is granted by NCTE, it is
implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on
those aspects. Consequently, the examining
body may not refuse affiliation on the
ground that the institution does not have
adequate
financial
resources,
accommodation, library, qualified staff, or
laboratory required for proper functioning
of the institution. But this does not mean
that the examining body cannot require
compliance with its own requirements in
regard to eligibility of candidates for
admissions to courses or manner of
admission of students or other areas
falling within the sphere of the State
Government and/or the examining body.
Even the order of recognition dated 17-72000
issued
by
NCTE
specifically
contemplates the need for the institution to
comply with and fulfil the requirement of
the
affiliating
body
and
the
State
Government, in addition to the conditions
of NCTE.

24. The examining body can therefore
impose its own requirements in regard to
eligibility of students for admission to a
course in addition to those prescribed by
NCTE. The State Government and the
examining body may also regulate the
manner of admissions. As a consequence,
if there is any irregularity in admissions or
violation
of
the
eligibility
criteria
prescribed by the examining body or any
irregularity with reference to any of the
matters regulated and governed by the
examining body, the examining body may
cancel the affiliation irrespective of the
fact that the institution continues to enjoy
the recognition of NCTE. Sub-section (6)
of Section 14 cannot be interpreted in a
manner so as to make the process of
affiliation, an automatic rubber-stamping
consequent upon recognition, without any
kind of discretion in the examining body to
examine whether the institution deserves
affiliation or not, independent of the
recognition. An institution requires the
recognition of NCTE as well as affiliation
with the examining body, before it can
offer a course or training in teacher
education or admit students to such course
or training. Be that as it may."

9. Emphasis laid upon an interim
order of this Court passed in Writ Petition
No. 2286 (MB) of 2009, laying down the
preposition of law that affiliation was not
required stands diluted in view of the
judgment rendered by the apex court in the
case of Chairman, Bhartiya Education
Society (supra). Therefore, reliance placed
upon the aforesaid interim order is of no
consequence.

10. The matter again came up for
consideration before the apex court in
regard to withdrawal of recognition,
wherein several deficiencies were pointed
out and the institution was found to be not
equipped
with
the
infrastructure
as
required under the Act and also not in a
position to impart quality education.

11. The apex court in the case of Shri
Morvi
Sarvajanik
Kelavni
Mandal
Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College (supra),
deprecated
the
practice
of
granting
approval in respect of institutions which
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
are ill-equipped and noticed the mushroom
growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and
unrecognized educational institutions. In
the said case, certain shortcomings were
found and withdrawal of recognition to
B.Ed. College was under challenge. The
apex court found that the deficiencies were
in the nature of inadequacy of built-up area
available to the institution, the land
underlying the structure was not in the
name of the appellant-Trust and the college
was being run in a building that was used
by two other institutions. The apex court
took a serious view and proceeded to
consider the case laws propounded by the
apex court in this respect time and again.
In paras- 8, 10 and 17 of the aforesaid
judgment, the apex court held as under:

"8.
The
High
Court
upon
a
consideration of the relevant records
including the inspection report placed
before it, dismissed the writ petition
relying upon the decisions of this Court in
Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and
Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
Ors.
(2011)
4
SCC
527,
N.M.
Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Anr. (1986) Supp. SCC 166,
Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalya
v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. SLP (C)
No.2067 of 1991, decided on 19.2.1991,
Andhra Kesari Educational Society v.
Director of School Education (1989) 1
SCC 392 and a few others. The High Court
held that the appellant was not entitled to
any relief in the writ proceedings filed on
its behalf and accordingly dismissed the
writ petition. Hence the present appeals,
assail the said judgment and order.

10. Mushroom growth of ill-equipped,
under-staffed
and
un-recognised
educational institutions was noticed by this
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas
Sahebrao Roundale and Ors. (1992) 4
SCC 435. This Court observed that the
field of education had become a fertile,
perennial and profitable business with the
least capital outlay in some States and that
societies and individuals were establishing
such institutions without complying with
the
statutory
requirements.
The
unfortunate part is that despite repeated
pronouncements of this Court over the past
two decades deprecating the setting up of
such institutions. The mushrooming of the
colleges continues all over the country at
times in complicity with the statutory
authorities, who fail to check this process
by effectively enforcing the provisions of
the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed
thereunder.

17. There is no distinguishing feature
between the cases mentioned above and
the case at hand for us to strike a
discordant note. The institution established
by the appellant is not equipped with the
infrastructure required under the NCTE
Act and the Regulations. It is not in a
position to impart quality education, no
matter admissions for the session 20112012 were made pursuant to the interim
directions issued by the High Court. We
have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting
the prayer for permitting the students to
continue in the unrecognised institution of
the appellant or directing that they may be
permitted to appear in the examination.
We, however, make it clear that this order
will not prevent the respondent-University
from
examining
the
feasibility
of
reallocating
the
students
who
were
admitted through the University process of
selection
and
counselling
to
other
recognised
colleges
to
prevent
any
prejudice to such students. Such reallocation for the next session may not
remedy the situation fully qua the students
2 All] Sardar Patel Institute of Technology V. State of U.P. and others
679
who may have to start the course afresh
but
it
would
ensure that
if
such
admissions/reallocation is indeed feasible,
the students may complete their studies in
a recognised college instead of wasting
their time in a college which does not
enjoy recognition by the NCTE. We,
however, leave this aspect entirely for the
consideration of the University at the
appropriate level, having regard to its
Rules and Regulations and subject to
availability of seats for such adjustment to
be made as also the terms and conditions
on which the same could be made. This
order shall also not prevent the affected
students from seeking such reliefs against
the appellant college as may be legally
permissible including relief by way of
refund of the fee recovered from them."

12. So far as the laying down of
additional qualification by the State
Government is concerned, the apex court
in the case of Laxmi Sharma (supra), found
that
the
college
was
granted
only
temporary
affiliation
and
permanent
affiliation was refused by the University.
Though the students were admitted and
permitted by the Court to appear in the
examination, but the results were not
declared. In those very special situation,
direction was given to admit the students,
but so far as affiliation was concerned, the
affiliating body was directed for giving
opportunity to the college and it was very
clearly laid down that the Courts cannot
direct the concerned authorities to grant
affiliation, as it would amount to trespass
on the jurisdiction of the University. The
apex court in Para-20 of the said judgment
held as under:

"20. As far as the appeals preferred
by the college against the common
judgment and the order passed on the
review application are concerned, we
agree with the view expressed by the High
Court that it is not for the Court to direct
the
concerned
authorities
to
grant
affiliation as that would amount to
trespassing on the jurisdiction of the
university. We can only request the
university to consider the grant of such
affiliation in view of the several inspection
reports and the recommendations made by
the inspection teams for grant of such
recognition. The appeals preferred by the
college are, therefore, disposed of with a
direction upon the university to consider
the grant of permanent affiliation to the
college after giving the college authorities
a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

13. Even in the case of Adarsh
Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (supra) in clause
(xv) of para 87 it has been provided that
the students admitted by unrecognized
institutions and institutions, which are not
affiliated to any examining body are not
entitled to appear in the examination
conducted by the examining body or any
other authorised agency. In clause (xviii)
of the said para it has also been held that in
future, the high Courts shall not entertain
prayer for interim relief by unrecognized
institutions and the institutions which have
not been granted affiliation by the
examining body and/or the students
admitted
by
such
institutions
for
permission to appear in the examination or
for declaration of the result of examination.
This would also apply to the recognised
institutions
if
they
admit
students
otherwise than in accordance with the
procedure contained in Appendix 1 of the
Regulations.

14. In para 79 of the said judgment, it
has been held as under:-
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

" 79. What needs to be emphasised is
hat no recognition/permission can be
granted to any institution desirous of
conducting teacher training course unless
the mandatory conditions enshrined in
Sections 14(3) or 15(3) read with the
relevant clauses of Regulations 7 and 8 are
fulfilled and that in view of the negative
mandate contained in Section 17-A read
with Regulation 8(10), no institution can
admit any student unless it has obtained
unconditional
recognition
from
the
regional committee and affiliation from the
examining body."

15. In the said case the students were
allowed to appear in the examination as
they were admitted. Since in the present
case, the students were not validly
admitted after affiliation, therefore, they
cannot be allowed to appear in the
examination. The petitioner, therefore, has
failed to make out a case for interference.
There has been no affiliation from the
examining body. In absence of affiliation,
the petitioner was not entitled to admit the
students and anyhow if any mistake was
committed by the Agra University, that
will not entitle the petitioner to claim any
parity or any illegal parity is supposed to
grant
indulgence
in
favour
of
the
petitioner. It appears that by mistake 48
students were admitted illegally by the
petitioner, whereas recognition was only in
respect of 200 seats. Therefore, I find no
illegality in the order passed by the
opposite party no.3.

16. Writ petition is devoid of merit. It
is accordingly dismissed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 3053 of 2008

Dharmendra Kumar Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Secy. Sec. Education &
4 others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
H.G.S. Parihar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Secondary Services Selection Board
1982-Section 16 (c)-payment of salaryclaimed by those L.T. grade teachers and
lecturers-appointed against substantive
vacancy
on
short
term
basis-heldmanagement has no power to appoint
short term basis against substantive
vacancies-salary can not be paid from
sate fund.

Held: Para 108 and 110

For the foregoing reasons, it can be safely
held that in view of the provisions as
provided under Section 16(1) of U.P.
Secondary Services Selection Board Act,
1982, the Committee of Management has
got
no
power
whatsoever
to
make
selections
on
the
post
of
Assistant
Teacher/Lecturer in L.T. Grade against a
substantive vacancy or a vacancy which
has converted into substantive one and the
power to make selection against the said
vacancy is vested only with the Selected
Board
duly
constituted
for
the
said
purpose.

In the result, I do not find any infirmity or
illegality in the action on the part of the
State
authorities/District
Inspector
of
Schools either not to pay the salary or to