HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.44 of 2009 (PIL) Society for Revolution against Corruption …Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent no.1. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.2. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent no.5. Dated : September 9th 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) By a letter dated 31st January, 2009 Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, Garhwal Univeristy, Srinagar, Uttarakhand informed the Secretary Higher Education, Uttarakhand Government, Dehradun that 18 affiliated institutions have enrolled students who did not have the eligibility of being enrolled as students to undergo B.Ed. course. It was also indicated that 14 of such affiliated institutions gave admission in breach of reservation Rules. Some of the institutions who were alleged to have breached reservation Rules were also alleged to have admitted students without having eligibility. The information contained in this letter appears to be the reason for presentation of the present Public Interest Litigation, where principally it has been contended that future teachers would be those who were not even eligible to undertake the basic course for becoming teachers. The matter was enquired into by the Court from 2 time to time and various directions were issued, ultimately, the Court directed the National Council, Northern Region Committee for Teachers Education to take appropriate action. In terms thereof the said committee purported to inspect the infrastructural facilities of the institutions and thereupon from time to time passed orders on the basis of such inspection and other informations received in respect of those institutions but did not make any inquiry or investigation as to whether students were admitted by those institutions who did not have eligibility to be admitted and whether they had breached reservation Rules applicable. That having been brought to the notice of the Court, the Court issued directions whereupon the committee issued notices to those institutions and after having had obtained replies from them withdrew the orders withdrawing recognition of those institutions in some cases and in others by retaining the orders withdrawing such recognition. This is evident from the minutes of 163rd meeting of the said committee held on 29/31 July, 2010. 2. In terms of orders passed by this Court the show cause notices and replies thereto have been produced before us. It appears to us that taking into account the fact that each of the said institutions was a private institution and taking into account the government policy that in such institutions if candidates belonging to the reserved category are not available, the seats meant for them may be filled in by open category candidates, the committee accepted the contention of the institutions that, inasmuch as, candidates belonging to reserved category were not available, the seats meant for 3 them were filled up by open category candidates. We think that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the committee did not have any means to enquire whether such contention on the part of the institution was correct or incorrect. 3. In relation to those institutions where the complaint was that the students without eligibility had been admitted, the committee felt in some cases that the complaint by the University was withdrawn later and in some other cases that no student was admitted who did not have the eligibility, while withdrawing the order of withdrawal of recognition. In remaining cases the orders of withdrawal of recognition were retained. We think that in the circumstances what the committee could do has been done. The learned counsel for Union of India has drawn our attention to the notification dated 23rd August, 2010 whereby and under the said committee has been superseded. We think in the circumstances as above, the purpose for which the present writ petition (PIL) was filed has served, inasmuch as, the committee while functioning as such, held that many of the institutions admitted students, who did not have eligibility and accordingly refused to withdraw the orders withdrawing their recognition. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 09.09.2010 Arti 4