IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 103 of 2009 Pestal Weed College of Information Technology & another. .……… Appellants Versus H.N.B. Garhwal University & others. ………. Respondents Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Special Appeal No. 105 of 2009 Sita Devi Memorial Institute of Education & Technology & another. .……… Appellants Versus H.N.B. Garhwal University & others. ………. Respondents Mr. Rahul Sripat, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Special Appeal No. 106 of 2009 S.P. Memorial B.Ed. College & another. .……… Appellants Versus H.N.B. Garhwal University & others. ………. Respondents Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Special Appeal No. 107 of 2009 Malini Vally College of Education. .……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. ………. Respondents Mr. A. Rab, Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Tamta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. 2 Special Appeal No. 108 of 2009 Shakuntala Devi Lok Kalyan Samiti. .……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. ………. Respondents Mr. A. Rab, Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Tamta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 4. & Special Appeal No. 109 of 2009 Shree Dev Bhoomi Institute of Education. .……… Appellant Versus Vice Chancellor & others. ………. Respondents Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) By this common Judgment, all the six Appeals are being disposed of together. 2. In the impugned Order dated 20th May, 2009, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants Institutions to surrender such seats, which have been filled-up by admitting candidates against the State Quota. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has directed the University / State Government to allot the seats to the appellants Institutions against the State Quota by holding the counselling based on common entrance test by 30th June, 2009 positively so that the Academic Session relating to the year 2008- 2009 starts w.e.f. 1st August, 2009. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants very specifically drew the attention of this Court to the earlier interlocutory order passed by the learned 3 Single Judge on 16th April, 2009 by which the appellants Institutions were permitted to admit the students who had appeared in and passed the common entrance test as well as had obtained the minimum cut-off marks. 4. Undoubtedly, the Order dated 16th April, 2009 did not specifically relate to the filling-up of seats against the State Quota, but that Order surely could not have been passed against the specific provisions contained in the Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006. Our specific attention has been drawn to Section 3(k) and Sections 6, 7, 8 & 11 of the said Act. Applying the aforesaid statutory provisions, we find that the impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity and is not also in contravention of the earlier Order dated 16th April, 2009 even though it does amount to modification of that Order in explicit and specific terms. If there is a specific provision of Government Seats and there is a manner how these seats have to be filled-up, the appellants Institutions cannot be permitted to fill-up the seats in contravention of the aforesaid statutory provisions. 5. Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned Advocate General drew our attention to the fact that despite the complaints sent by the University to the National Council of Teachers Education, action by NCTE has not been taken against the erring Institutions resulting in jeopardy to public interest. We have noticed the second-last para of the impugned Order in which the learned Single Judge has directed NCTE to file a supplementary counter affidavit disclosing therein the status of the inquiry with respect to the complaint sent by the University. In reiteration of the aforesaid direction, we on our part also direct the NCTE to ensure that indeed the inquiry is completed before 30th June, 2009 in all respects and whatever action is required to be taken is taken by NCTE in accordance with law and on the merits of the case. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Special Appeals are dismissed in limine. 7. The disposal of these Appeals by this Court shall not prejudice the parties as far as their rights and contentions in the Writ Petitions are 4 concerned. Actually, we go so far as to observe that the writ petitioners in the Writ Petitions shall not be prevented from raising pleas and issues relating to the vires of the respective provisions, if so advised. (V.K. Bist, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 02.06.2009 02.06.2009 G