1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2496/2011 (Dhananjay Gajananrao Gudadhe VERSUS Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Kilor, counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.B. Kasat, counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri K.H. Deshpande, Senior Counsel WITH Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 24 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the notification dated 28.04.2011 issued by the Management Council in regard to the appointment of the respondent nos.2 and 3 as members on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation under Ordinance No.3-A framed by the respondent no.1-University. The petitioner is nominated as a member on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation under Ordinance No.3-A of the respondent no.1-University. By the same notification dated 28.04.2011, by which the petitioner was nominated as one of the members on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation, the respondent nos.2 and 3, working as Principal and Lecturer in the Degree College of 2 Physical Education, run by Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati were also nominated as Members on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner wants to contest the election of the Chairman of the Board of Physical Education and Recreation. Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati is a College with autonomous status and it is the case of the petitioner that being an autonomous institution, the same cannot be treated as an affiliated college. According to the petitioner, since the respondent nos.2 and 3 were not working as Principal and Lecturer in an affiliated college, they were not entitled to be nominated as Members on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent nos.2 and 3 are wrongly nominated as members on the said board and they would be entitled to vote at the election of the Chairman of the Board, which the petitioner is contesting. The petitioner, therefore, sought a writ for quashing and setting aside the notification dated 28.04.2011, so far as it nominated the respondent nos.2 and 3 as members on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation. Shri Kilor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, took this Court through the direction issued by the respondent no.1-University on 02.04.2011 prescribing the procedure to be adopted for appointment, nomination on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation. It is the case of the petitioner that Appendix-I annexed to the said direction shows that one of the members is to be nominated from the category of 'Principal of College' either of Amravati or outside and one woman Lecturer working in the college of Physical 3 Education, which is affiliated to respondent no.1-Gadgebaba Amravati University, is to be nominated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the term 'College' is defined under the provisions of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and the same means 'a college conducted by the University or affiliated to the University, situated in the University area'. The learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the definition clause and specifically Sections 2(5) and 2(6) thereof, which define the terms 'autonomy' and 'autonomous college'. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an autonomous institution has full academic, administrative and financial autonomy and it means a college, institution or a department, to which autonomy is granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an autonomous institution or college loses its affiliation no sooner it acquires the status of an autonomous institution. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Clause No.48 of Statute No.3 of 2007 to substantiate his submission that the affiliation is reacquired or resumed by an autonomous college after its autonomous status is revoked or surrendered. This clause, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, clearly shows that the affiliation granted to a college is lost on acquiring an autonomous status and is regained on the revocation or the surrendering of an autonomous status. The learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the various provisions of the Act to show that there are various Boards and Committees formed for the administration of the universities and the colleges thereunder, whereas, in view of the provisions of Statute No.3 of 2007, an autonomous institution has a separate board of management 4 as provided in Clause 20 and 21 thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that over the affiliated college, the university has an absolute and total control but, such control is not exercised by the university over an autonomous institution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the autonomous institution, in which the respondent nos.2 and 3 work as the Principal and Lecturer, was not an affiliated college, they could not have been nominated as Members on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation by the notification dated 28.04.2011. Shri Kasat, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1-University, submitted by referring to the submissions made in the affidavit-in-reply that Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal was granted permanent affiliation by the respondent no.1-University under Section 88 of the Act of 1994 in the year 2000 and since then the said institution is paying the affiliation fees and is treated as a college affiliated to the respondent no.1-University. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that though the Mandal had been conferred an autonomous status for a period of five years with effect from 2007-08 to 2011-12 in respect of certain courses, the Mandal did not lose its affiliation to the respondent no.1-University. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that the permanent affiliation granted to the Mandal is not revoked, withdrawn or cancelled by the University till this date. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 relied on the provisions of Section 89 of the Act of 1994, specially Sub-Section 1 thereof, to canvas that it is only the University, Department or Institution, affiliated college or recognized institution, which can apply to the university for grant of autonomous status. The learned 5 counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that affiliation is a prerequisite for seeking the grant of autonomous status and the affiliation subsists even after acquisition of an autonomous status. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, supported the nomination of the respondent nos.2 and 3 as members on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation, and submitted that the submission of the petitioner that an autonomous institution loses its affiliation on the acquisition of an autonomous status, is misconceived. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 took this Court through the provisions of Statute No.3 of 2007 and specially Clause 3 thereof, which after stating the objectives of autonomy added a note that an autonomous college shall mean and include affiliated, conducted and/or constituted college. By relying on Clause 3 of Statute No.3 of 2007 it is canvassed that an autonomous college or an institution is also answerable to the Parent University. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 submitted that the students of an autonomous institution are awarded the degrees by the respondent no.1-University. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 also relied on the provisions of Section 91 of the Act of 1994, which provides for withdrawal of affiliation or recognition and submitted that affiliation or recognition can be withdrawn by the university only if the college or institution conducts itself in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the university or the standards laid down by it and for no other reason. 6 On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the provisions of the Act of 1994 along with Statute No.3 of 2007 framed by the respondent no.1-University under Section 89 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, it appears that the respondent no.1- University did not commit any error in nominating the respondent nos.2 and 3 as members on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation by the notification dated 28.04.2011. It is nobody's case that the Mandal was not affiliated to the respondent no.1-University till it acquired the autonomous status in the year 2007. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that the Mandal lost its affiliation to the respondent no.1-University after gaining the status of an autonomous college, whereas it is the case of the respondent nos.1 to 3 that the affiliation granted to the Mandal was not lost on the acquisition of the status of an autonomous college or institution. Section 89 of the Act of 1994 stipulates that an University, Department or Institution affiliated college or Recognized Institution may apply to the University for grant of autonomous status. The Mandal was an affiliated college before it applied to the University for grant of autonomous status. There is nothing in the Act or Statute No.3 of 2007 to show that the affiliation of the college to the Parent University is lost no sooner the college or institution acquires the autonomous status. In fact, the provisions of clause 3 of Statute No.3 of 2007 make it clear that an autonomous college means and includes an affiliated, conducted or constituted college. Clause 3 further makes it clear that the autonomous college or institution is fully 7 accountable for the content and quality of education that it imparts and is responsible for evaluation of students for Awards or Degree, Diploma and Certificates, which would be accepted by the Parent University. Merely because the autonomous college is required to constitute a Board of Management, which is quite distinct and separate from the Committees and Boards, which are constituted in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1994, it cannot be said that the autonomous institution loses its affiliation to the Parent University no sooner than it acquires an autonomous status. Clause 48 of the Statute No.3 of 2007, on which great reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not in any manner suggests that the college or institution conferred with autonomous status loses its affiliation to the Parent University. All that Clause 48 provides is that on revocation or surrender of the autonomous status, the college or department again resumes the status of an affiliated or conducted college as it was holding prior to the grant of an autonomous status. Clause 48 speaks about the status of an affiliated or the conducted college and does not speak merely of affiliation. Moreover, Section 2(10) of the Act of 1994 stipulates that a 'College' means a college conducted by the University and Section 2(6) stipulates that an 'autonomous college' means a 'college' to which autonomy is granted and is designated to be so by the statutes. Since an autonomous college is a 'college' and a 'college' means a college, which is conducted by the University or affiliated to the University and since in this case, the Mandal was not a college conducted by the University and was a college 8 affiliated to the University, it would be a college affiliated to the University. There was surely no withdrawal of the affiliation as stipulated by the provisions of Section 91 of the Act of 1994 in this case. The Mandal continuously paid the affiliation fees to the respondent-University even after acquiring the autonomous status in the year 2007 and the respondent no.1-University also considered that the Mandal was one of its affiliated colleges and had not lost the affiliation by acquiring the autonomous status in the year 2007. The case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 committed an error in nominating the respondent nos.2 and 3 as the members on the Board of Physical Education and Recreation, though they did not work as Principal and Lecturer in the affiliated college, is devoid of merit and is, therefore, rejected. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. It is needless to mention that the interim order granted by this Court stands vacated with the dismissal of the writ petition. JUDGE JUDGE APTE