1 ASWP-5766-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5766 OF 2011 Asian Academy of Education and Research, Pune ...Petitioner Versus Pune University and ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.S.B.Deshmukh and Mr.Prathamesh Bhargudefor petitioner. Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Ms.Swati Deshmukh i/b. Mrs.M.G. Kulkarni for respondent nos.1, 3 to 5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. August 25, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Anturkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner with Mr.Deshmukh. The petitioner is an educational institution registered as a trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It had applied for affiliation for its M.Sc. (Computer Science) course for the academic year 2008-2009 2 ASWP-5766-2011 and it was not successful in the same even for the academic year 2010-2011. Hence this petition to set aside the Resolution dated 29th September 2010 of the Sub-committee of the Academic Council of Respondent – University and also the order dated 18th October 2010 refusing affiliation for the academic year 2010-2011. The petitioner also prays for directions to grant conditional affiliation on the basis of the findings of Dr. B.D. Kulkarni Committee and the petitioner in this regard relies upon the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7249 of 2009. It was also urged by Mr.Anturkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 there is a provision for granting conditional affiliation and this power has been exercised by the University in respect of many other institutions and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the petitioner is also granted conditional approval keeping the principle of equality in mind, for the academic year 2011-2012 (current academic year). 2. There is no doubt that the petitioner could not get affiliation for the M.Sc. (Computer Science) course as per the letter dated 22/11/2008 for the academic year 2009-2010 and, therefore, it approached this Court in Writ Petition No.7249 of 2009. By its order dated 4/11/2009 a Division 3 ASWP-5766-2011 Bench of this Court stated as under: “Whether infrastructure is in place to start the computer course will have to be considered by the LIC before granting recommendations. We may only mention that Statute/Ordinance/Rule/Regulation do not provide for rejection of application on the ground of previous no experience. The application therefore cannot be rejected solely on that ground. It may be a relevant aspect to be considered amongst others but not the sole consideration. In the light of the above considering that the sole ground for rejection of the application was no experience which was made with reference to some academics, which really cannot be understood, we set aside the impugned orders and direct the university to consider the petitioners’ application afresh according to law at the earliest. Considering that LIC has been appointed the respondent – university to take decision to the extent of M.Sc. (Computer Science) within one month of the report of the committee. 4 ASWP-5766-2011 This would be for the academic year 2010-2011. The university to call for the report of the committee within one month.” After this order was passed, the university on 10/11/2009 constituted an LIC headed by Dr. Vilas Kharat with other two members i.e. Prof. Prashant Mulay and Prof. S.S. Deshmukh. 3. The said committee submitted its report to the University on 12/2/2010 and it recommended as under: “Taking into consideration all the above observations, the committee unanimously recommend that the permission must not be granted to start M.Sc. (Computer Science) course at AAER’s Asian College of Science and Commerce, Survey No.47/8, Narhe, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune for the academic year 2010-2011.” 4. This report was placed before the Vice Chancellor of the respondent – University and by its letter dated 4/3/2010 the University 5 ASWP-5766-2011 informed the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor has accepted the said report of Dr. Vilas Kharat Committee. In the Academic Council meeting held on 5th May 2010 the report of Dr.Vilas Kharat Committee was placed before the Academic Council and it resolved to constitute a fresh committee under the chairmanship of Dr. B.D. Kulkarni with two other members viz. Dr. Deepak Shikarpur and Dr. Madhurima Dixit. It was decided in the Academic Council meeting that the newly constituted committee will visit the premises of the petitioner – society on 14th July 2010, examine the infrastructure as well as availability of teaching faculty and submit its report. Accordingly the committee visited the premises of the petitioner on 14/7/2010 and submitted its report dated 28/7/2010. This report was accepted by the University and on 18/10/2010 the University declined to grant permission / affiliation to commence M.Sc. (Computer Science) course for the academic year 2010-2011. 5. The Committee headed by Dr. Kulkarni made the following observations in its report dated 28/7/2010: “(1) The college has a three-storeyed building admeasuring approximately 30,000 sq.ft. on a land leased to them for a 6 ASWP-5766-2011 period of 11 years. The building has 11 classrooms with approximate seating capacity of 50 students. Nearly half of the classrooms were provided with tables, chairs, boards etc. Some classrooms (two) could accommodate upto 80 students. (2) The college has a library hall with about 15 Godrej cabinets for housing library books. The library was getting ready to subscribe to e-journals and their annual budget was around Rs.35,000/-. (3) The computer laboratory has about 25 desktop computers with licenced software. (4) The entire campus has Wi-Fi connectivity. (5) The college could admit 15 students out of a sanctioned quota of 80 students for the bachelor course. (6) The college was asked to provide a list of teaching staff (submitted later) and non-teaching staff (We saw about 8-10 7 ASWP-5766-2011 of such people along with the registrar). Personally we met only one member of their teaching staff.’’ It is thus clear that even the third Committee headed by Dr.Kulkarni was not in favour of holding that the petitioner has the required infrastructure. However, it recommended a conditional permission. 6. It appears, the petitioner approached the Chancellor of the respondent – University under Section 9(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. By the communication dated 19th October 2010 the petitioner has been informed by the Joint Secretary to the Chancellor, the order of the Chancellor that on perusal of the report received from the University, there was no justification to interfere with the decision taken by the University authorities on the petitioner’s application. In the affidavit in reply filed by Shri Pramod Bhadakwade on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 it has been stated that the petitioner had submitted one more application under Section 9(3) of the Universities Act to the Chancellor and Mr.Anturkar on instructions states that even the second application has also been rejected and thus as of now there is 8 ASWP-5766-2011 nothing pending either before the University or the Chancellor so far as the academic year 2010-2011 is concerned. At the same time Mr.Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the University also invited our attention to the fresh application submitted by the petitioner – Society for permission to start the M.Sc. (Computer Science) course for the academic year 2011-2012 and the same has been recommended by the University to the State Government. 7. It was submitted by Mr.Anturkar that all the six reasons given by the University in the impugned order dated 18/10/2010 are irrelevant and three of them pertain to the B.Sc. (Computer Science) course. It was also submitted that there could be adequate budgetary provision made for subscribing to e-journals and the petitioner has already published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Principal after the draft was approved by the University on 30/6/2011. He also urged that ownership of the building cannot be made a condition precedent though availability of adequate premises could be insisted upon and there may be societies which may take such premises on lease. 8. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions 9 ASWP-5766-2011 advanced before us by both the parties and the reports submitted by all the three committees i.e. the committee headed by Dr. Gangarde, Dr. Vilas Kharat and Dr. Kulkarni. Section 81 of the Universities Act sets out conditions for affiliation and recognition and some of them are (i) the number of students admitted for courses of study shall not exceed the limits prescribed by the university and the State Government from time to time; (ii) there shall be suitable and adequate physical facilities such as buildings, laboratories, libraries, books, equipment required for teaching and research, hostels, gymnasium as may be prescribed; (iii) financial resources of the college or institution shall be such as to make due provision for its continued maintenance and working; (iv) the strength and qualifications of teaching and non-teaching staff of the affiliated colleges and recognised institutions and the emoluments and the terms and conditions of service of the staff of affiliated colleges shall be such as prescribed by the university and which shall be sufficient to make due provisions for courses of study, teaching or training or research, efficiently. Section 83 of the Universities Act prescribes the procedure for affiliation and sub-section (3) of the said Section empowers the Academic 10 ASWP-5766-2011 Council to decide the issue of granting affiliation. In the instant case the report submitted by the Dr.Vilas Kharat Committee was accepted by the Vice Chancellor and subsequently it was submitted before the Academic Council. The Academic Council decided to constitute a fresh committee headed by Dr. Kulkarni and the committee headed by Dr. Kulkarni was also not satisfied with the infrastructure available with the petitioner society so as to run the M.Sc. (Computer Science) course. In fact the report submitted by Dr.Kulkarni committee indicated that there was only one teaching faculty member at the relevant time and as against the sanctioned in take of 80 students for B.Sc. (Computer Science) only 15 students were admitted. 9. Be that as it may, in the instant case the Vice Chancellor, the Academic Council as well as the Chancellor have considered the petitioner’s case and declined to grant permission / affiliation for the M.Sc. (Computer Science) course for the academic year 2010-2011 and the said academic year has already gone by. We do not find any case to even entertain the request for granting conditional permission for the current academic year i.e. 2011-2012 to the petitioner – society so as to commence the M.Sc. (Computer Science) course. However, we are 11 ASWP-5766-2011 informed and as is clear from the record, a fresh application submitted by the petitioner – society has been recommended to the State Government and it would be appropriate that a fresh committee is constituted by the University to assess the physical infrastructure including the appointment of the Principal as well as duly qualified faculty members appointed by the petitioner – society till December 2011. The committee should submit its report by January 2012 so that the petitioner’s application is considered for the ensuing academic year 2012-2013 well in advance. Save and except the above directions to constitute a fresh committee, the petition is rejected. 10. Before we part with the case we must also note and which has not been disputed by the University that in a large number of colleges for which permission / affiliation has been granted by the University on certain conditions and to run the courses in Computer Science from the year 2008-2009 onwards, the Principal as well as teaching faculty members have not yet been appointed and in our considered opinion the University should not compromise on the requirements of a qualified faculty in all these colleges. We suggest to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent – University to constitute a committee of three to five 12 ASWP-5766-2011 members to take a review of the availability of duly qualified Principals as well as other teaching faculty members including Librarian in all these newly opened colleges and the future decisions to continue affiliations should be based on such report. 11. Writ to go forthwith. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)