F 4,71, 15, 19, 19 & 20 $- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELIII AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9706/2009, CMNo.78L0/2009 (u/S 151 CPC for stay) & CM l._ No.l1878/2009 (u/S 151 CpC for directions) I ADITYA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY & SCIENCE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate Versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rashi Bansal, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Parag p. Tripathi, ASG with Mr. 'shadan Farasat & Mr. Mukul Talwar. Advocates for respondent no.2. AND + w.P.(c) 12639/2009 ,l' ADITYA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY & SCIENCE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra. Advocate Versus A.I.C.T.E. & ANR_ .... Respondents Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advoiate. Page 1 of 11 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified AND + W.P.(C) 12724/2009 & CM No.15323/2009 (rl/S 151 for interim directions) .f AJAY PRATAP SINGH AND oRS ..... petitioners Through: Mr. Ajit Nair, Advocate Versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Mr. Shadan Farasat & Mr. Mukul Talwar. Advocates for respondent no.2. Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with N4r. Sandeep Sudan, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate for R_3. iF w.p.rcl 2rr7/2oto AND ADITYA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY & SCIENCE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aseem Mehrota, Advocate Versus GURU GOBIND SINGH I.P.LINIVERSITY & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Mr. Shadan Farasat & A/k. Mukul Talwar. Advocates for respondent no.1. Page 2 of 11 AND + w.P.(c) 377s/20r0 & cM No.7570/2010 (u/s 1s1 cpc) NAINA MALHOTRA ..... petitioner ,f. Through: I\zlr. Naveen Malhotra, Advocate Versus GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Mr. Shadan Farasat & t\dr. Mukul Talwar, Advocates for respondent no.2. VIr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate for respondent no.3. A&. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.4. AND + W.P.(C) 4045/2010, CM No.8051/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for interim i>' order) & CM No.8354/2010 (u/S 151 CPC to amend the memo of parties) MIIKESH PANT ..... petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Advocate Versus GNCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Mr. Shadan Farasat & Xdr. Mukul Talwar. Page 3 of 11 Advocates for respondent no.2. Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Advocate respondent no.3. Xdr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate respondent no.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER rs.07.2010 for for ,,rI o 1. !vP(c) No.9706/2009 & !vp(c) *"ffik"been preferred by Aditya College of Pharmacy & Science challenging inter alia the action of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and of the Government of NCT of Delhi prohibiting the said College which had earlier been permitted to impart education in B. Pharmacy (a four years course) from admitting any students for the academic year 200940. It is the case of the college that notwithstanding the said prohibition, the University while conducting admissions for B. Pharmacy course for the said academic year admitted three students to the College. The said three students and,32 other students are the only students of the said course in the College. Besides these three students admitted in the first year, the remaining 32 students were in 2"d & 3'd year of the course. 2' There is no interim order or stay of the ban aforesaid imposed on admissions in the College till date in favour of the College. The said two petitions preferred by the College are being contested by the Government of Page 4 of 11 r, NCT of Delhi as well as the University inter alia on the grounds that the College did not fulfill the conditions on which it was granted approval to conduct the said course and lacks infrastructure to conduct the said course. 3- !VP(C) No.12724/2009 was filed by 33 students of the College seeking orders for their transfer in the same course to any other College affiliated to the University. This Court vide interim order dated 5th May, 2010 in the said petition, with the permission of the University and the AICTE, permitted the said 33 students to be transferred to another College. The said 33 students have already appeared in the exam held in May-July, 2010 through the said other College and are awaiting their result. 4. wP(c) No.377512010 & wP(c) No.404512010 have been filed by two other students for the same relief as in WP(C) No. 12724/2009. 5. wP(c) No.2rr7l20r0 has been filed againby the college, impugning the action of the University of permitting six out of the aforesaid students to appear in the exam. It is the contention of the College that the said six students did not have the requisite attendance and were thus not entitled to appear in the examination. Notice of this petition has not been issued as yet. The counsel for the College contends that the action of the University permitting the said six students to appear in the exam without satisfuing itself in accordance with its Rules whether the said students had the requisite minimum attendance or not is illegal. The College seeks quashing of the results of the said six students. Page 5 of 11 ( rl, b 6. This Court had appointed a Commissioner to inspect the infrastructure of the College. It is the contention of the counsel for the University that a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as the Commissioner owing to the obstructions created by the College to the Inspection Committees earlier appointed by the University. The counsel for the College of course controverts the said contention. The fee of the Commissioner was fixed by the court as Rs.1,00,000/- to be shared equally by the University and the College. The University paid its share of the fee but the College has till date not paid the fee since 22"d March,2010 and inspite of a further order on 1 1th Muy, 20L0. The counsel for the College states that the College is in financial trouble, has no funds and is unable to pay its share of fee and contends that university or AICTE be directed to pay its share as well. 7. The Court Commissioner in any case inspected the premises of the College and has submitted a report. The Commissioner has in the report stated that the members of the Society running the College did not allow the representatives of the University and AICTE to effectively assist the Commissioner; that they were aggressive, intimidating and insulting; they humiliated the members of University & AICTE and at every stage when the commissioner sought assistance of. the university and the AICTE representatives, they were prevented from doing so. The Commissioner has fuither reported that he had to intervene several times and admonish the College and had to exerqise care, restrain & caution while conducting the proceedings. ' Page 6 of 11 /- 8. The Commissioner has also reported that the College is being run from a rented premises situated in a congested residential area and that the Commissioner was not permitted to carry out measurements with the assistance of the members of the AICTE to ascertain whether the building / premises conform to the prescribed norms or not. The Commissioner has further reported that the building is not fit for running of a College. It has also been reported that though there is some equipment and machinery in the labs but the same does not appear to be adequate and that since the College did not permit the representatives of AICTE and University to assist, it was not possible to make a detailed assessment. 9. It has been enquired from the Counsel for the College as to what right the College has to insist upon the students continuing with it. The counsel contends that the issue of continuance of students be decided together with its challenge to the ban order against it inasmuch as if the ban is set aside, the students ought to continue. The counsel for the University has drawn attention to Ordinance 7 in the Calendar of the University which provides for 'Migration of Students'. Such migration of course has to be inter alia subject to the NOC of the College from which migration is sought. In view of the stand of the College, it goes without saying that the College is not willing to give NOC to the students who want to migrate to another College. 10' The College appears to be using the students as pawns in its disputes with the University / AICTEI Government. The same cannot be permitted. Y Page 7 of 11 The issue of ban on admissions in College cannot be linked to the issue of migration sought by the students. The College of course would be interested in retaining the students. The counsel for the College has urged that there is no ban on the College continuing to impart education to the students already admitted to it and to the said students taking the exam and getting the educational qualification for which they have joined the College and hence the students should not be permitted to leave I migrate from the College and the College is entitled to deny 'No Objection Certificate' for migration. 1 1. However, the matter has to be looked into from the perspective of ground realities. The students have joined the College on the assumption of the College being recognized and entitled under the regulations to impart them knowledge in B. Pharma and having requisite infrastructure for the same. However, the said assumptions are now under a cloud. In fact, the very continuance of the College as an institute imparting qualification of B. Pharma is in jeopardy. The students have not joined the said course as an academic exercise but with a view to earn livelihood. The prospective employers lay great emphasis on the Institute / College. The reputation of a Institute / College carries considerable weight in securing employment to its students. The reputation of the College is presently at stake; jeopardizing the career and future of the students. The students thus cannot be blamed for panicking and seeking migration. There is another aspect of the matter. The counsel for the college has t2. Page 8 of 11 stated that the College does not have Rs.50,0001- to pay the fee of the Court Commissioner. Can such a College be expected to have or retain faculty and provide other infrastructures for educating the students. I am afraid not. Though the counsel for the College contends otherwise but I refuse to allow the students to remain at the mercy of the College, especially when they have an option. The College, with no fresh inflow of students is likely to indulge in cost cuffing and cutting corners, all to the prejudice of the students. 13. The Division Bench of this Court inAman lchhpuniani Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Delhi University MANUlDEl0246ll998 has held that the discretion vested in the College to take a decision on an application for migration has to be guided by relevant considerations and not by whim and caprice. It was held that the teachers and principals of Institutes / Colleges are trustees of the students and expected to act in the interest of the students. It was fuither held that in the event of conflict between the interest of the student and the interest of the Institute / College the interest of the student outweigh that of the Institute/College. It was yet further held that the choice of the student has to be respected. 14. The Supreme Court in Bisheshwar Dayal Sinha Vs. University of Bihur AIR 1965 SC 601 observed that it is quite possible that the affairs of an affiliated college may be mismanaged and a situation may arise where either the University or the Vice Chancellor may feel justified in taking t' Page 9 of 1L t' v drastic action to save the situation because the consideration of paramount importance must always be the interest of the students studying in such College and there can be no objection to the University being empowered to take suitable and reasonable action to meet emergencies arising from such situation which expose students to the grave risk of intemrption in their smooth academic work. Thus even in the absence of No Objection Certificate from the College, the power in the University to effect migration in such situation, can be found. 15. The College in the present case is certainly not acting in the interest of the students. The same is quite evident from the college filing !vp(c) No.21I7/20I0 impugning action of the University of permitting six of its students to take the exams when according to college they lacked the requisite attendance. Considering the state of affairs prevailing in the College, as prima facie appears to be the case, the insistence on attendance particularly when the University has allowed the students, is not understandable. 16. The counsel for the College at this stage states that if it is the non payment of the fee of Rs.50,0001- to the Court Commissioner which is coming in the way of the College opposing the writ petitions of the students, the College is willing to pay the same and the College will arrange for the same some way or the other and seeks one week's time to pay the same. However, the fate of the students cannot be left hanging. The college has '- I Page 10 of 11 \ iI , already availed of sufficient time and the difficulties expressed, irrespective of whether justified or not, cannot be permitted to come in the wav of the future of the students. 17' !VP(C) No.12724/2009, WP(C) No.3775/2010 & 4045/20t0 are thus allowed. The University is directed to transfer / permit migration of the students to another appropriate College in accordance with law and the Rules and Regulations but without insisting on No Objection Certificate from the College. The transfer effected under the interim orders of the Court is made absolute. No order as to costs. 18. !vP(c) No.21r7/20r0 preferred by the college, for the reasons aforesaid is found to be without any merit and is dismis sed, in limine. I refrain from imposing costs on the College. 19. The counsel for the colrege states that the fee of the court Commissioner shall be paid within one week. List these petitions for hearing on l7,h August,2010. JULY 15, 2010/gsr SAIIAI ENDLAW. J \" Page 11 of 11