w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA & HON‘BLE SHRI RN. CHANDRAKAR, JJ Writ Petition (C) No. 3255 of 2008 Petitioner : St. Thomas Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Mission, running St. Thomas Cciiege, Ruabandha, Bhilai, Through Fr. Raju Thomas Aged about 45 yrs, Treasurer. R/o St. Thoma$ Ashram, Kaiiash Nagar, Bhiiai, Dist. Durg (CG) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary. Shri Sourabh Jain, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Amrito Das, Pane! Lawyer for the State. Shri Pramod Verma, Sr. Advocate with Shri Raghvendra Verma, counsei for respondents No. 2 & 3. oRAL ORDER (27* September, 2010) Par Dhirendm Mishra .I The petitioner has filed the instant petition and prayed for the foiiowing substantive reiief(s): (01) To quash the ietters Vide no. 582/A.Ka./G4 dated 22.3.2004; vide no. 71 8/A.Ka./G4 dated 12.4.2004: vide no. 422/A/KaJOS dated 22.2.2005; vide no.1"405/A.Ka/0‘707/O'7i07; vide no. 160/5amaviparii08 dated O4.G2.2008 and other such reiated and consequentiai letters written by the University to the petitioner. (02) To quash the $tatute no.28 of Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya being ultra vires to the Regulations made by the University Grants Commission in respect of'administration of private unaided coileges. (03) To kindly restrain the respondent no.3 University from enforcing the Coiiege Code specificaiiy Statute 28 whioh provides a right to the University to impose the condition, governing the administration, of i \ x Coileges against the petitioner until the final disposal of the petition. Departmant 9f Higher Education, DKS‘: Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG) 2. Chancelior, Pandit Ravishankar $hukia Vishwavidyaiaya, Raj Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3. Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Vishwavidyaiaya, Thraugh Registrar, Raépur (CG) 4. University Grants Commission. Bahadur $hah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Present: (O4) To kindiy direct the respondents n0. 1‘and 3 to aiiow the petitioner ta recruit teaching and other staff in consonance with the prov§sions contained in the UGC Reguiations. (05) To kindly direct the respondent No.4 University Grants Commission to take appropriate action against the other respondents in accordance with {aw for disobeying the UGC Reguiations despite communication to them repeatedly by the respondent No.4. (06) To kindly direct the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to delete/suitabiy amend the Statue no.27(7)(1) and 27(8)(1) and 27 (8)(2)(e) of its Statutes and ail such statues which are vioiative of/not in consonance with the UGC Regulations. 02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an unaided private educational institute run by the minority community. Respondent No.3 in purported exercise of powers under the College Code, particularly Statute 28, which provides a right to the University to impose conditions governing the administration of colleges, has issued various letters to the petitioner-institute in the matters of recruitment of facuity and directed the petitioner to fulfill the conditions enumerated in Statutes 27 & 28. failing which strict action under the provisions of the University Act, 1973 and the Statute is contemplated. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that W.P.(c) No.831/0$, St. Vincent Polioti College Vs. State of CG & others, and other connected writ petitions, have been allowed by this Court vide order dated 23'“ July, 2008 (filed as Annexure R/1-1 with the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 1/State). He further submits that from. perusal of the return filed by the respondents, it would be evident that the respondents have taken similar objection in their counter affidavit to the present petition, as was raised in the earlier writ petitions. Therefore, the instant petition also deserves to be disposed of in the simiihr terms, as mentioned in para-21 of the said order. 03. Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the State and Shri Pramod Verma, iearned Sr. Advocate with Shri Raghvendra Verma, counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3, submit that the provisions the State Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder cannot be held to be ultra vires as the same contains provisions regulating recruitment of teaching staff of private affiiiated colleges. The State is competent to iegislate the said law as the same is covered under Entry 25 of List lll- of Schedule Vll of the Constitution. T /,__‘, /tw , v The impugned reguiaiions under the State Aci mereiy regulate the rights of the private institutions in the matters of appointment of teaching staff in a very limited way to ensure that the standard laid down by the Union, are implemented and maintained. Statute 28 is fuily backed by the legai powers conferred by the State Act. The selection committees, constituted under the Statute, consist of academicians a'nd subject experts and the same have been constituted to ensure selection of appropriate persons. Similar stand was taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit to the writ petitions med by St. Vincent Palioti College - an unaided private institution -— run by the minority community and affiliated with the respondent/University However, the petitioners petitions have been decided vide order dated 23rd July, 200$ in terms of para-21 of the above order. The University has preferred a special leave petition to appeal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed issuance of notice vide Annexure R-3/3l 04. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings in the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith. Also perused the return tiled by the respondents and the order dated 23*“ July, 2008 passed in WP(c) No.83’li08 and other connected petition. ’ 05. The petitioner, in the instant petition, has prayed for quashing of the letters issued by the respondent/University to the petitioner from time to time on the ground that the above letters have been issued in purported exercise of powers conferred upon the University under the Statute 28 of the College Code. Since the identical issue has already been considered and decided by this Court between private unaided educational institutions of minority community and the respondents, we dispose of the instant petition in terms of para 21 of the order dated 23’” July, 2008 passed in W.P.(c) No.831/08 8. other connected writ petition. igat“ ‘Qf"g’g._ -- . Sdi— . Sdl- ‘ ndra Misma R.N. CHANDRAKAR-J Judge ‘Dh'nre Judge T l vi z Qife