CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10955 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JUNE 30, 2010 Haryana College of B.Ed., Hisar .....Petitioner VERSUS Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.C.Sibal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Kashmira Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Education has become a business and apparently there is mashroom growth of the Institutions, who unmindful of any concern about the education are ruining the lives and careers of the innocent students. The facts, emerging from the records of these three Writ Petitions atleast would clearly so indicate. Civil Writ Petition No.10955 of 2010 has been filed by Haryana College of B.Ed., Mundhal Road, Sorkhi, with a prayer to direct the respondent- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10955 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Kurukshetra University to allow the students admitted by the petitioner-Institution to appear in B.Ed examination commencing w.e.f. 1.7.2010 and to issue roll numbers. The petitioner-Institution would also pray for quashing the order dated 26.5.2010, whereby the list of candidates submitted by the Institution were returned with some observations. How, the lure of money has led to spoiling a year in the life of number of students can be made out from the facts in the present writ petitions? The petitioner-Institution was set up in the year 2007. It is stated that NECT inspected the petitioner-College and gave permission to run B.Ed. College. The petitioner wrote to the University for affiliation for opening a new College, which was accepted on 24.12.2007. The petitioner Institution claims to have got permission for admitting 100 seats in B.Ed. Course in the years 2008-09, which was successfully completed. Hundred seats were again allotted for the year 2009-2010. Out of these, 52 students were admitted through counselling under the supervision of the respondent-University whereas 48 students were directly admitted. Thereafter, Members of the petitioner-Society appear to have acted on their own and had submitted three separate lists of 100 students each regarding admission to B.Ed. Course. One Ishwar Sharma also filed a civil suit against the University for grant of approval of the list of the students supplied by him. He also prayed for interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. This order was confirmed by the first Appellate Court. Keeping this in mind and the fact that the students have been arbitrarily CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10955 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: admitted by various numbers of the petitioner College, University returned the request for issue of roll numbers etc., for which the present writ petition was filed. Though, no case for interference apparently was made out, yet keeping in view the interest of the students, notice was issued to the University to ascertain if there was some merit in the plea made in the petition. In the meanwhile, 100 students filed Civil Writ Petition No.11191 of 2010 for direction to allow them to appear in the B.Ed. examination. Another Civil Writ Petition No.11044 of 2010 came to be filed by 56 students with the identical prayer for allowing them to appear in the B.Ed. examination. This perhaps is on behalf of another Member of the Institution, who has shifted to Meham, District Rohtak to run the classes by admitting the students separately. It is in this background that these three writ petitions are being disposed of through this common order. The University has filed reply in Civil Writ Petition No.11044 of 2010. A detailed mention has been made to the facts, which would disclose that three Members of the Society i.e. M.D., Secretary and a Member of the Society have sent the list of 300 students against the intake of 100 students. The registration forms were accordingly returned to all the three mentioned Members of the College as they had admitted the students much beyond the permission granted by NCTE. The counsel appearing in the respective writ petitions have made their submissions. Each counsel would justify respective action of their petitioner in admitting the students by claiming that it was the real Institution. Mr.Malik appearing for number of students CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10955 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: would submit that atleast those 53 students, who were admitted by associating the University during the counselling, should be permitted to appear in the examination, if not all the students. Undoubtedly, this mess has been created by the petitioner-Institution and the Members running the Society. Would such a Institution, which is least concerned with the lives of the students, should be heard in equity, keeping in view the concern of the students? The Members have acted in this illegal and arbitrary manner apparently only to enrich themselves at the cost of innocent students, who were admitted by the same Institution. `Profit not the education' appears to be the motto with the petitioner-Institution. The action has left the students high and dry. The Members of the Institution have ruined atleast one year of these students, who have been so lured for admission in the B.Ed. Course. From the circumstances appearing in this case, it is hard to imagine that the college has run any classes to teach. This appears to be a shop being run to earn money by these greedy Members of the College- management. It is, thus, not possible to hold as to which Institution is having the genuine admission as per the approval granted by the NCTE. How, NCTE has granted permission and affiliation to such like Institution would be another strange fact. Is it, that some other considerations are at play and such Institutions are able to earn affiliation by adopting some other means, not legally permissible? It is high time that NCTE take action against such Institutions to de- recognize them or to de-affiliate or to withdrawn affiliation so that such shops are not permitted to ruin the career and lives of innocent CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10955 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: students. It does not appear to be the concern of any Member of the Institution that a year in the life of the students would stand wasted because of their infighting and the greed on their part. Thus, prayer made in the writ petitions can not be granted. Such disputed questions of facts can not be decided in writ petition to see which is the genuine Institution to admit students to grant the permission as prayed for. I am conscious of the fact that interest of the students, who have been so admitted, would ultimately suffer. That alone, in my view, may not be a reason enough to ignore the gallant illegality and the highhandedness on the part of the Members of this College to fight amongst themselves and to create a situation as it exists today. The University is perfectly justified in declining the prayer of the petitioners and students for issue of roll numbers to enable them to appear in the exams in the background as is noticed above. Still, the students can not be left without remedy. I am of the considered opinion that each of the student who has been admitted by each of the member of this college Management is entitled to seek damages from the College as well as the individual member of the Management for misleading them and ultimately wasting one year of their life. While dismissing the writ petitions, I would leave liberty with the students who were admitted by the Members of the Institution to approach any appropriate Forum to seek compensation from the College as well as from the individual Members of the Society, which is running the College. This compensation indeed should be exemplary so that such greedy persons are made to learn CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10955 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: a lesson of their lives for playing with the lives of innocent students. It is ordered accordingly. In the meanwhile, NCTE and the University is directed to decide if the affiliation and recognition granted to the petitioner-Institution is to be continued or is needed to be withdrawn immediately. June 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE