HiGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WnlPetitjorLlCJ No.4024 ot20Q8 St. Thomas Malankar Orthodox Syr'san Church Mlssslon Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for pronouncenrsent of the judgment & order on /^ -11-2008 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1»»» ^ HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITSONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (C)No. 4024 of 2008 St Thomas Malankar Orthodox Syrian Church IV!lsslon, through Fr Raju Thomas, aged about 45 years, Treasurer, runnlng St. Thomas CoHege, Ruabandhg, Bhiiai, R/o St. Thomas Ashram, Kaiish Nagar, Bhiial, Dtett. Durg (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of .Schaoi Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Martrateya, Raipur (CG). 2. Chanceiior, Panciit Ravistenkar Shukta Vlshwavidyalaya, Raj Bhawan, Raspur 3.. Pandlt Ravishankar Shukia Vjshwavidyataya, Through R^lstrar, Ralpur (CG). 4. State Councit for Edycation Research and Training (SCERT), Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Articie 228 of the Constitutlon of Sndia) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, couns@S for th@ petitloner. Shrl Aiok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate forthe State. Shri Vlnay Pandey, counsei for the respondent Na«3. JUDGMENT & ORDER (Passed on this _ltl.. day ot November, 20@8) By thls petition, the petlttoner impugns the order dated 21-7-2QD8 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Registrar, Pandit Ravishankar Shukta Universlty (for ahort fsthe ^BSpondent Unlversity^ whereby admission to the St. Thomas College run by the petltioner ooiiege for the acariemic sesslon 2008-09 was banned. 2) The brief facts, in nutsheii, necessary for disposai of the aase, are that on 14-7-2008 the Executlve Councit of the respondent Universlty _\ »»N^ resoived to ban admlsslon to the courses in the petitioner colSege for the academic sesslon 2008-09. The said resolutSon was cornmunlcated to the petitloner by the Impugned order dated 21-7-2008 (Annexure-P/1) whereby it was directed not to admlt the students for the academic sessson 2008-09. 3) The dlspute arose with regard to appointment of the teachers, The respondent University informed the petltfoner college on 7-7-2007 that It has faiied to foliow the guldellnes provided In Statute 28.in appointment of teachers; therefore, the admlsslon to first year course was debarred In acacSemlc session 2007-08. On an underteking given by the petitioner college that the petitloner wouid Inltlate steps to appoint staff as per the Unsverslty regulations l.e» Statute 28 and in accordance with the varioys judgments passed by the Hon'bte Supreme Court, the ban was tlfted on 20-7-2007 and admissicns to the courses were made. The dlspyte continued and ultimately the respondent University bann©d again the admlssion to the courses for tie academlc session 2008-09 by order dated 21-7-2008 (Annexure-P/1) on the groynd that the guldetlnes as prescribed In Statute 28 has not been compiledl with by the petltsoner Coiiege. 4) Shri Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearlng for the pefitioner, would submit that the impugned order dat©d21-7-20C®(Annexure-P/1) bannlng the admlssion to the petltloner college on the ground that Statute 28 has not been compiled wlth Is iliegal, unreasonable and contrary to the weil settied princlple of iaw. Learned counsel woutd further submitthat the issue involved In this petltlon is squarety covered by the decision of the Dlvision Bench of this Court in the matter St Vincent Patlotl Cotiege vs» State of Chhattlsgarh & Others (Writ Petition (C) No.831 of 2008 decided on 23-7-2008) '^ 5) In the matter of St Vincent PalEotl Coltege (supra) the Divssion Bench of this Court heid that ciause 29 of the Statute 2B canre)t be enforced againstthe Minority Unaided EducatsonaJ Snstltutlon. Admlttedly, the petitioner coilege is a minority institute as evident from Annexure-A/2 and the same is not disputed by the respondent Universlty and, as such, compiiance of Statute 28 is not appEicabIe to the petitioner ^ottege. 6) Ssnce the dispute involved in the case on hand' Is sqyareSy covered by the decision of the Dlvlsion Benoh of this Court in the matter of St- Vincent Palloti CoiSege (supra), this petition ss aiso aitowad 'ln the same terms as stated in para 21 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "21. !n the resuit, the petition is altowed 'm the foliowjng terms:- > Order dated 1.2.2008 of Annexure P-23 is hereby set aside and the respondent No.2- University Is directed to conslder the admissions of students for the academic year 2007-08 In the petitioner coilege afresh in the jjght ofthe observations in thls order. > Part-tti & IV of Statute - 28 which;- ^ Prescribes for nomination of representatives of tSie university and the State Government in the govQmIng body; -« Interferes with &ie constitution and fynctioning of govemlng body; » Reguiates the meeting of Qoverning body; • imposes conditlons of approvai of the executive committee In the matters of appointment, promotion, suspension and punishment of the teachers and other staff; CSause 17 to 21 ofthe Statute-28 which prescribes; ® Procedure for oonstttutlon of selectlon committee tbr the appointment -of the Prjncipal and teachers of the college and aiso prescribes that the Committee shail conslsts of the Kulpatl or hls nomlnee as Chairrnan; 1 /''8'ly'-"'^ ^' \^-// "^St^^' NINSl^ d^) 7) ® Nominee of tie Executlve Coync$i; 9 Mode of selectlQn, prescrlbes pay-scales & annuai Increments for categones ofteachers and Principai. > CSause 29 of the Statute-28 which mandates approvai of the executive councit In the matter of termination of confirmed teacher and ateo prescribes condjtion of term.inatiorit Clause 31,31 & 32 of Part - IV of fhe Statute - 28 by which djsdptinary proc^Beding the feachers or other emptoyee Is sought to be regutated, amoynte to unreasonabte restrictlons on the adminjstration of the petitloner Institute, which is a recognteed minority educational instJtutson, and also constitutes infringement of thsjr right guaranteed ynder Articte 30 (1) of the ConstJtutlon of indla as such, the cannot be. enforeed agaEnat the petitjoner institution by the respondent No.2 - Universlty." In the resu.It, the impugned order dated 21-7-2008 (Annexure-Pfl) Gowrl is quashed. Accordlngiy, the petition Is aliowed. No order costs» Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l^