IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8536 of 2001 Between: 1 Nalanda Educational Society, Rep. by its President, A. Nagarjuna, having its office Opp. to Venkateswara Temple, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2 Racharla kamala Lakshmi Kantha Rao College, Through its Correspondent, A. Nagarjuna, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Osmania University at OU Campus, Through its Registrar, Hyderabad. 2 The Controller of Examinations, Osmania University, Hyderabad. 3 The Standing Committee of Academic Senate, Through its Chair Person, Administrative Building, O U Campus, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring and setting aside the order dt. 19-10-2000 passed in Lr.No. 2960/H/99- 2000/Acad/IV-2 on the file of the First Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction; Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MR. DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GOVT. FOR EDUCATION. The Court made the following : O R D E R : The 1st petitioner Society established the 2nd petitioner College in the year 1989. Certain impersonation cases came to be detected during the annual examinations of the year 2000. A committee was constituted by the 1st respondent University to enquire into the impersonation cases. The Committee conducted enquiry and pointed out lapses committed by the 2nd petitioner College. A show-cause notice was issued to the 2nd petitioner College calling for explanation on the lapses pointed out. The 2nd petitioner College submitted its explanation dated 03.06.2000. The Standing Committee of the Academic Senate of the 1st respondent-University being not satisfied with the explanation proceeded to impose the following penalties under proceedings dated 19.10.2000: 1) Last warning; 2) Rs.50,000/- fine; 3) No new courses for next three years; and 4) If such illegal actions are repeated in future disaffiliation. The 2nd petitioner College submitted representation dated 31.01.2001 for waiving of the penalties. The matter was again referred to the Standing Committee of the Academic Senate of the 1st respondent University. The Standing Committee did not find any valid ground for waiver of the penalties and thereby rejected the representation. Hence, the writ petition by the petitioners assailing the proceedings dated 19.10.2000 issued by the 1st respondent University imposing the penalties. 2. A.Nagarjuna, President of the 1st petitioner Society and Correspondent of the 2nd petitioner College, has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Para.4 of the writ affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “4. I respectfully submit that the allegations made against the petitioner are totally false and incorrect. There is absolutely no basis for the allegation of impersonation. The impersonation cases referred to are not with reference to 2nd petitioner college and if any individual has impersonated and wrote examination for another student in the centre with which the petitioners are concerned, the same cannot be the reason for taking any action against the petitioners. Mere collection of examination fee and enlistment on the rolls by itself is not an offence. There is no detection of any impersonation case in the 2nd petitioner college. In respect of the impersonation case detected of the candidate from the 2nd petitioner college, no Hall Ticket forms are sent from the 2nd petitioner college and if any documents are fabricated, no liability can be fastened on the petitioners. In spite of detailed explanation, the same has not been considered and the impugned order is issued based on the proceedings of the Academic Senate which has also not conducted any enquiry much less any valid enquiry by issuing prior show cause notice and opportunity. So far affiliation aspect is concerned, the same is governed by rules issued in Statute, in exercise of powers conferred under Cl.(e) of Section 44 of Osmania University Act and the said affiliation rules are in force. In the said rules framed which are in force and being applied for affiliation and disaffiliation, there is no such power conferred on the respondent authorities either for imposing fine or prohibiting grant of new courses for next 3 years. There is threat of disaffiliation in the event of not paying the fine. There is no reason to impose such a huge fine. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.14 of the Constitution of India. As the proceedings are initiated only with regard to disaffiliation against the 2nd petitioner, there cannot be any embargo for grant of new courses to be started by the first petitioner society. The first petitioner society is intending to start college for imparting M C A Course and now in view of the impugned restrictions initiated against the 2nd petitioner college in spite of provisional grants by competent authorities, the impugned proceedings are coming in the way and are made applicable against the petitioners. I respectfully submit that even as per show cause notice, a committee seems to have made an inspection. Said report is not submitted. No opportunity is given to the petitioners at any point of time and the report relied on is an ex parte one and no action can be initiated based on such proceedings. In any event of the matter, the order is not a speaking order. No reasons are assigned for passing the impugned order. On the ground that there are no valid reasons in support of the impugned order, the same is fit to be set aside. The present order is issued without any enquiry and opportunity and there are no powers conferred on the Academic Committee of Senate to pass the impugned order. The order passed is without jurisdiction under the rules of affiliation framed in the Statute by the University and the same is liable to be set aside.” 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 26.04.2001. An interim order also came to be granted on the even date prohibiting the respondents from taking coercive steps for realization of an amount of Rs.50,000/- imposed as fine vide WPMP No.10838 of 2001. 4. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. Prof.Y.C. Venudhar, Registrar of the 1st respondent University, has sworn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that a committee comprising Dr. K.Muthyam Reddy, Joint Director, Academic Audit Cell, Dr. Y.C.Venudhar, Additional Controller of Examinations (Now Registrar) and Mr.V.Mohan Rao, Deputy Registrar (Academic) examined the allegations leveled against the 2nd petitioner College and found them to be true. Basing on the report of the Committee, the University addressed letters to the Principals of the three colleges to show-cause why the said Colleges should not be disaffiliated. The colleges submitted their explanations and the same were placed before the Standing Committee of the Academic Senate, which met on 4th and 7th of August, 2000. On considering the report of the committee and explanations of the Colleges thereon, the Standing Committee of the Academic Senate proceeded to impose a fine of Rs.50,000/- besides banning new courses for three years. Except the 2nd petitioner College, other two colleges complied with the direction of the University and students are accordingly permitted to write the examinations. The request made by the 2nd petitioner College for waiver of the penal action came to be rejected and intimated under letter dated 20.01.2001. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2nd petitioner College is not responsible for impersonation and therefore, the penalties imposed on the 2nd petitioner College by the 1st respondent University are not legal and proper and the same are liable to be set aside. A further submission has been made that the discrepancy in the admission forms and examination forms has occurred because of inexperience of the Clerk concerned. The learned counsel would also contend that the Academic Senate is not competent to consider the explanation submitted by the 2nd petitioner College. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Academic Senate of the University has power to appoint Standing Committees and to delegate them of the powers to execute any of the functions assigned by the Act. Much emphasis has been laid on Section 25 (2)(l) of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991, which reads as hereunder: S.25. Powers of the Academic Senate:- (1) ….. (2) (a) … (b)…. [c]…. (d)…. (e)…. (f)…. (g)…. (h)…. (i)…. (k)…. (l) to appoint standing committees and to delegate to them or the Vice-Chancellor, powers to execute any of the functions assigned by this Act; (m) .…” 8. In view of the above referred provisions, the Standing Committee of the Academic Senate is competent for considering the representations of the 2nd petitioner College. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that Academic Senate is not empowered to consider the representation submitted by the 2nd petitioner College has no substance. 9. Indisputably, a committee was constituted to enquire the allegations leveled against the three colleges including the 2nd petitioner College. The committee conducted enquiry and submitted a report. Basing on the report, explanation has been called for from the 2nd petitioner College. In the explanation the factual aspect of impersonation is not denied. The 2nd petitioner College tried to avoid its liability on the ground that discrepancy in the admission forms and examination forms occurred due to lack of knowledge on the part of the concerned Clerk. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the explanation submitted by the 2nd petitioner College to the show-cause notice, which reads as hereunder: “The Principal affixed his signature on all the admission forms that were put on the table of the Principal after the completion of the admissions every year. The signature of the Principal may not be found on the admission forms of the old students who are admitted before his assumption of the office. The clerk also signed on all the admission forms. Some of the forms may not have the signatures of the clerk due to the lack of the knowledge of the importance of it. Hereafter the Principal and the Clerk would invariably affix their signatures on the admission forms of the students. Photographs of the students are fixed on all the admission forms. Due to improper fixation of photos on the admission forms by the students they may be lost on some admission forms. Besides that all the admission forms are dumped in a store room while the building was under construction. The photos were not removed by the office staff. If at all the authorities feel still that they are removed, the original Intermediate Certificates will be obtained from the students and they would in turn be submitted to your office for verification.” The admission forms and examination forms were not filled by the office staff. The forms may be filled either by friends or parents of the students. Hence, the signatures of the students may not tally. The clerk is expected to verify the signatures. Due to lack of knowledge of the importance they might not have verified the signatures, hence the signatures may not tally. The students are not affixing their latest photograph even after repeated instructions. Hence, they may not be identical.” 10. The 2nd petitioner College through the explanation tries to give an impression that the discrepancy in the admission forms and examination forms has occurred due to lack of knowledge on the part of the Clerk concerned. When the Hall Tickets are issued under the signature of the Principal, it is for the Principal to verify whether the photograph affixed on the Hall Ticket and the Photograph appearing on the admission form are one and the same. The Committee comprising of three responsible persons examined the record and came to the conclusion that the 2nd petitioner College is responsible for the discrepancy between admission forms and examination forms. Indeed the discrepancy pointed out by the Committee has not been denied by the 2nd petitioner College in its explanation dated 03.06.2000. 11. In that view of the matter, I find that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:09th June, 2009. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}