C.M. No. 4946 of 2010 in 1 L.P.A. No. 794 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 18.1.2011 (1) C.M. No. 4946 of 2010 in L.P.A. No. 794 of 2010 (O&M) Haryana College of B.Ed ............Appellant Versus Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and others ...................Respondents Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate for the respondents (2) C.M. No. 5216 of 2010 in L.P.A. No. 784 of 2010 (O&M) Mamta Devi and others ............Appellants Versus Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and others ...................Respondents Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent No.3 (3) C.M. No.2 of 2011 in L.P.A. No. 792 of 2010 (O&M) Jitendra Yadav and others ............Appellants Versus Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra and others ...................Respondents Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. S.C.Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent No.3 C.M. No. 4946 of 2010 in 2 L.P.A. No. 794 of 2010 (O&M) CORAM:- HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH RANJAN GOGOI, ACJ. : (Oral) All the three appeals having arisen from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.6.2010 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts in brief may be recited at the outset. In the year 2007 recognition was granted by the National Council and Teachers Education to the Haryana College of B.Ed located at Sorkhi in Hisar District. The affiliation to the said institute was granted by the Kurukshetra University in the year 2008. A batch of 100 students was admitted to the institution in the academic year 2008-2009. The said batch of the students apparently passed out. Trouble started in the next academic session i.e. 2009-2010. 52 students were sent to the institute after due central counselling conducted by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. Thereafter it appears that three lists each of 100 students was submitted by three office bearers of the managing body of the institute namely Om Vir, Mukesh Kumar and Ishwar Sharma for registration of students with the Kurukshetra University. In the list so submitted Om Vir claimed to have admitted 44 candidates who had sought admission after central counselling. In the list submitted by Mukesh Kumar the names of all 52 candidates were included. In the third list submitted by Ishwar Sharma 5 of such candidates were included. The other candidates in each of the lists were different. The aforesaid starting point of the break up in the managing body of the institute saw a parallel institute being set up at Meham by C.M. No. 4946 of 2010 in 3 L.P.A. No. 794 of 2010 (O&M) Ishwar Sharma. In so far as the institute at Sorakhi is concerned there is a tussle between Om Vir and Mukesh Kumar who claim to be running the institute at the original place. In the aforesaid circumstances, the University conducted a spot inquiry in the month of February, 2010, the report (Annexure R-1/5) whereof was highly adverse to the claims of each of the above stated three persons with regard to their legal competency to run any vague institute. That apart the spot inquiry revealed that there was no college building, no faculty and no students and in fact it was admitted by Om Vir before the inquiry committee that there was no building of the college for the enrolled students and “no attendee” and furthermore there was no staff. In such circumstances by three separate orders dated 6.5.2010 the aforesaid three persons were informed by the University that the list of students for registration is being returned as the same cannot be accepted by the University for the reasons shown therein. One such order dated 26.5.2010 issued to Mukesh Kumar had been challenged in C.W.P. No. 10955 of 2010 whereas two other writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge which were filed by the students wherein the prayer was to allow them to sit in the examination. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petitions viewed the conduct of the three alleged office bearers of the B.Ed institute with great displeasure and recorded the conclusion that the aforesaid three persons had literally converted education into a money spinning business. That apart, the learned Single Judge took into consideration the circumstances in which each of the three lists were submitted and the contents thereof and found the decision of the University dated 26.5.2010 to be fully justified. Accordingly C.M. No. 4946 of 2010 in 4 L.P.A. No. 794 of 2010 (O&M) while granting leave to the students to file damage suits against the persons who had admitted them, directions were issued to the University to take a decision on the issue of affiliation of the Institute and further consequential orders. Aggrieved, each of the writ petitioners have filed these three separate appeals. So far as the claim raised by Mukesh Kumar is concerned which is the subject matter in L.P.A. No. 794 of 2010, it will be suffice to say that in view of the allegations and counter allegations that have emanated from the rival parties there can be hardly any credibility or authenticity of the list of 100 students submitted by Mukesh Kumar to the University on the basis of which the impugned order dated 26.5.2010 has been passed. The counter allegations against Mukesh Kumar raised by Om Vir is that the institute under Mukesh Kumar had been shifted from original location and the denial of the same and the similar allegations by Mukesh Kumar against Om Vir further adds to the serious doubts with regard to the authenticity of either of the institutes. When the total intake of the students by the Haryana College of B.Ed was 100 it cannot be perceived as to how under certain different names three separate lists of 100 students could have been submitted for approval to the University by Haryana College of B.Ed Education. That apart, the absence of any college building, faculty or students casts serious doubts with regard to the credentials of the members as mentioned in the inquiry report of the University referred to earlier.All the above would act as serious obstacles for the court to consider the prayers made by the appellant Mukesh Kumar or to hold that the learned Single Judge had erred in coming to the conclusion as recorded. So far as the two batches of the students who had filed L.P.A. C.M. No. 4946 of 2010 in 5 L.P.A. No. 794 of 2010 (O&M) No. 784 and 792 of 2010 are concerned, the position would be no better. The two batches are the students admitted by Om Vir and Ishwar Sharma. Insofar as the students admitted by Ishwar Sharma are concerned admittedly they had been attending the classes in a building at Meham which is outside the jurisdiction of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. If the institute itself is outside the jurisdiction of the University it is difficult to understand how the students of such institute can sit in the examination to be conducted by Kurukshetra University. Insofar as the students admitted by Om Vir is concerned, once again the question arises as to how in the facts already noted another list of 100 students could be submitted by him claiming the institute to be the original and bonafide institute. That apart, the absence of any building, faculty and students as found by the University are common factors that will disuade the court from passing any orders in favour of the students who are admitted by Om Vir. Before parting with the case, the court would like to observe and record that it had seriously considered the feasibility of allowing the 52 students, who had been sent by the University after counselling,to sit in an examination that may be held in future. Notwithstanding the serious attempt made by us to salvage the situation, insofar as the 52 students are concerned, no effective resolution is possible inasmuch as out of the same very 52 candidates while Om Vir claims that 44 of them were admitted into his institute, Mukesh Kumar claims that 52 are in his institute and at the same time Ishwar Sharma had also raised claim that 5 such students are in his institute. The aforesaid facts are apparent from the recitals contained in the inspection report of the University. As the divergent claims in respect of the same 52 candidates have been made it is difficult for the court to find C.M. No. 4946 of 2010 in 6 L.P.A. No. 794 of 2010 (O&M) any effective resolution of the matter in favour of the aforesaid 52 students. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in any of the L.P.As and consequently dismiss the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. The University is directed to take necessary steps for de- affiliation of the institute in terms of the order of the Learned Single Judge. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 18, 2011 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____