V’ C13 w“ 1 azy/ slNGL‘E BENCH IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION {s} No. 234/ [201 Gurpreet Smgh S/o Gurcharan Slngh age about 33 years, R/o Vlllage Mothan Wala,P O Saffu wala Tah And Dlfstrlct Moga (Punjab) VERSUS / 'l 1 ! ‘, PE'IPITIONER < 1) State of CHhattjsgIh through the Secretary Department of ’ Higher Education, Mantralaya, D.K. Bhawan, Rajpur (C.G.) 2) Private University Regulatory ' Commission, Government of Chhattisgarh, Madhu Pilley Chowk, Opposite Ram Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) State f Punjab through the Secretary, Department of Education, Punjab, Chandigarh Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Authority (Punjab) through State Project Director, SCO 104-106, 2nd 85 3r Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 1 10002 Indian, University Raipur, through its registrar, Office Situated at 2/22, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS i t a S. o d ‘ Ar—K « W { - . 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR g‘ ‘ ‘ WRIT PETITION (S) No. 234 of2010 ’ ,> E PETmONER Gmpreet Smgh t { VERSUS 2 RESPONDENTS : state ofmmatusgam & 0mm. ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'IIHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ SB Hon’me Sim Satish K. Agnnmi, J. f Presé£t Shn Anant Bagpal, Advocate fdr the petitioner I shn AV smdhar Panel Lawyer for the 3m ‘ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18 day of January, 2010) 1 I ’The petitioner seeks a direction to theirespondents and 3' declaration that the BEd degree (Annexure P/2) obtamed by $e pentmner &om the ' / respondent No 6-Umvers1ty may be held as vahd w ad practmal V ‘ V purpose, and mrther to quash the order dated 02.12.20d9 (Annexgre m) wlgereby, the sma- smksha Abhiyan Aummty Punjab hem that the awaiting ofthe status of the Indian Univemity, Iiaipur, «cfG. and the degree issued by the said Universitywaé not estabiished. The impugned order:dated~ 02.12.2009 (AnnexureP/6) was passed pursumt to the order dated 25.09.2009 yassed by the Hoh’blePmjab & Haryéna High Court in Civil Writ Petitoin No. 151050009. 2‘. The ‘brief’facts, as :projeetedby the petitioner, are that the State of Chhanisgarh enacted an Act 1mm as Chheuisgmhmji Kshetra Vishwevidyateye‘(sthepeeAw Vmymmn) Adhiniyem, 20oz (fer start the Act 2002’) prowded for establishment of private umversmes The respondent No 6-Umversrty was established wrsuant to the prov1srons of the Act, 2002 by nohticatlon dated 3/11 10 2m2 issued by the State 7 I of Chhattisgarh The respondent No 6-Umverstty established m‘ ‘ L 1 ‘ 26 educational oemre in me name andstyle of “Jammu College of ' Education” a1 Kathua, (Jammu & Kashmir). The petitioner sougn admission in the said educational centre at Kathua for B.Ed course in the academic session 2003-2004. The petitioner was awarded B.Ed degee thereaiier. Several petitions challenging the validity of the Act, 2002 were tiled in l the Supreme court The Supreme Court in Prof Yashpal & another v. 1 d 9’ State ofChhamsgarh & Others’, and other cmmected matters, declaxe W that the provisions of section 5 and o of the Act, 2002 as ultra wires, to the Constitution and the same was suuck down accordingly. As a sequel, all the notifications issued 1n exercise of power conferred‘by Section 5 of the said Act, stood quashed. The Universities, which were notified under the provisions of Section 5 ofthe Act 2002 also ceased to exist. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that since the BEd degee was awarded to the petitioner before 11.2.2005 when the provisions of section 5 and 6 ofthe Act 2002 were declarediultra vr'msr the respondent university was a valid and legal university till that date and as such, the degree of BtEd awarded to the petitioner may be < ‘ declared a valid and legal degree for an practical purposes. The Supreme Court, in Prof Yashpal & another (supra) have not made any declaration that all the degrees obtained prior to the date of. the judgnent, would be nullity or invalid. “Shall cease to exist” means that the university was valid and ilegal university till the pronouncement of its, 4 > the judgnent and order on‘ll.2.2005 when it wg observed that the t l \ l reepondent university shall cease to exist. I ‘(2f005) 5 soc 420 The Supreme Court, in Pr¢ Ycrspal h & another (supra), while considen'ng the validity of section 5 under: “45. The Stave Legislatu providing for incorporati i 3 E leglslatwe head must manner as 1t 1s generall n w J a ~ y Sections 5 and 6 of the impugned enactment are, wres, bemg naud on the > therefore, whony ultra ,Consntutlon.” It was further observed 1n para 64 as under “64 In order to protect the Interests gone Into tins. ' of the students who may r is directed that the State Govenmiem may take” ,i appropriate memes to have such institntions: .= = afiliated to hie alreadyexisting State universities in o -\ Chhattlsgar In the present case the petitioner was admitted to the educational centre at Kathua, (Jammu & Kashmir), outs1de the territory of the state of Chhattisgarh, and further no step was taken by the respondent/priVate University to get itself ah‘iliated to the existing State Universitiefsrin Chhattisgaiii pursuant to the declaration of section 5' and 6 of the Act, 2002 as ultra vir'es being a haud on die constitution. As a consequence, :the Supreme Court tinther directed that all the notifications issued b' y re can make an enactment of universities under Entry ’ 2 of List II and also generally for universities under ntry 25 of List III The subject ‘umversrty" as a Interpreted in the same or commonly undemood, be aetually studying m the ' institutions established by such, private universitiesa it and 6‘ofthe Act, 2002 med as 1 l I x f t t amely, with proper facilities for teaching of higher . level and continuing rese’prch aetiv1ty An enactment hich Simply clothes a proposal submitted by a sponsoring body or the sponsoring body itself With the f uristic personality of a umversrty se as to take advantage of Section 22 of the UGC Ant and thereby ' cquires the right of conferring or granting academic é degrees but Without havmg any intiastructure or u teaching facility for higher studies or tacility for research is not contemplated by either of these emries 3? , a47 5 of the Act, 2002 notifying the univ sities “including 3 to 94’ we; ‘ quashed and such universities ahall cease to exist. The provisions ofsection 5 and 6 ofthe . 2002 was declared as ultra vires. It means that the legislature has» no competence to &ame ‘ provisions of section 5 and 6 of the Act, 2002. Consequently, the notifications were quashed. If the notificwom have been quashed; existenceof the University become null and void since inception as i \‘ there was no other provision which permits the respondent No. 6-, P University to establish an institution andg" grant degee of B.Ed. 9. Thus, all the notifications including the notiiications dated 3/11. 10.2002 in question is quashed and the establishment of respondent No 6-' University also, stands quashed nom the inception. Thus, any deyeei i E awarded by the respondent No. 6-Unive‘rsityvcannot be held as a legal? e " 3 andvalid degee. 10. a For the reasons stated hereinahove, the ,petition‘having no merit, isi ‘ dismissed at the motion stage itself. //\ Sd/ IsH K. AGNmon SAT ‘