Whether state can regulate working of minority educational institution?

 The Society then seeks to justify its action by virtue of the rights and privileges which it claims to be entitled to as it has been granted the status of a linguistic minority Institution. As per Article 30 of the Constitution of India all minorities based on religion or language have been granted the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The nature of right of a minority institution to establish and administer an educational institution has been the subject matter of consideration in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While the right to 'establish' an educational institution has been held to mean to bring into existence an educational institution, the word 'administer' means the right to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. There is a freedom to choose the managing body, the Principal and the staff. There is also freedom to admit students of its own choice. However the right to administer is not an absolute right and there is requirement to comply with conditions of recognition and affiliation. The right to administer has been held not to include the right of mal-administer. The general rules and regulations relating to the conditions of service and tenure of teachers under the employment of minority institutions are required to be consistent with such rules and regulations as framed by the State. Applicability of the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution to a minority institution would not make it immune from the operation of regulatory measures. The extent of regulations by the State is permissible in the matter of service conditions of employees but without interfering with the overall administrative control by the Management over the staff.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5448/2011

Decided On: 20.03.2020

 Manorama Prakash Khandekar  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Chandurkar and Vinay Joshi, JJ.

Citation: 2020 SCC Online Bom 471

Print Page

Whether resolution passed by UGC regarding distance learning course is statutory in nature?

As regards the status and legal position of
the UGC, it was held that UGC Act, 1956, under which
it has been created, has a supervening influence over
all other Legislations on the subject of education for
maintenance of minimum standards in the country and
indisputably governs Open University also. Thus, the
resolution adopted in the 40th Meeting of the DEC dated
08-06-2012, Annexure P34, to confine the territorial
jurisdiction of the Private Universities within the
geographical limits of the States of its locations, having
been taken as a consequence of a policy decision of the
Government of India, it cannot be held to be
unauthorised and invalid. The policy decision
ultimately crystallised in the form of Order dated 29-
12-2012, Annexure R4. This Order having been issued
by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, 

Department of Higher Education, Government of India,
Respondent No.1, in exercise of its powers under SubSection
(1) of Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956,
assumes a statutory character and would be considered
as part of the main Statute, i.e., UGC Act, 1956, and
binding upon all Universities irrespective of whether the
other Statutes including the ones under State
Legislations provide otherwise. This is so far as the
questions of law are concerned.
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

S.B. : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. WANGDI, JUDGE

WP(C) No.08 of 2015
Petitioners : 1. Mr. Pralhad Dani Chhetri,


 versus
Union of India


(29th June, 2015)
Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC) 560 skm

Print Page

What remedy is available to student if results of revaluation are delayed?

There is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the
University that the petitioners and the other students like them are
provided with the facility of revaluation as an additional facility and
there  is no right in them to seek revaluation.  We do not find any force
in the submission made on behalf of the University that there is no right
to seek revaluation.   We find on a reading of Direction No.5 of 2004
that the students are entitled to make applications seeking revaluation
of their answer­sheets. The very fact that the petitioners were declared
unsuccessful initially as per the results declared on 16/06/2015 and are
declared successful after revaluation, clearly shows that it was the fault
of the University in not awarding appropriate marks to the petitioners at
the first valuation. The fact that the petitioners were initially declared
unsuccessful and are declared successful after revaluation clearly shows
that the facility is deserved.  We have witnessed that sometimes some
worthy   students   are   either   declared   unsuccessful   or   are   awarded
extremely low marks in the initial valuation and after revaluation they
are declared successful and their marks are increased significantly.  At
least, in case of such students, it cannot be said that revaluation is an
additional facility which the University has granted to the students due
to its generosity. 

8. We do not find any force in the submission made on behalf
of the University that the revaluation results were declared within a
period of 65 days.  We are not inclined to reckon the period from the
date of making of the application for revaluation as the results were
declared   in   the   case   of   the   petitioners   on   16/06/2015   and   the
declaration of the revaluation results was on 05/10/2015.  This clearly
shows that the results of the petitioners were declared after a period of
110 days from the date of declaration of the results.  We find that there
is a gross delay in the declaration of the results of the petitioners in the
instant  case. The submission made on  behalf of the  University  that
about   135   to   140   days   are   required   for   completing   the   process   of
revaluation is ridiculous. If this is accepted, the results of the students
would not be declared till the next supplementary examination.  Also,
the students would not be entitled to admission in the subsequent year
of the same course or to a new course if the last date for submission of
the mark­sheet for appearing at the examination of the advanced course
or   the   next   year   of   the   same   course   is   25th  of   September.     The
revaluation facility would be illusory. The students may not know till
the beginning of the supplementary examination whether they would or
would not be required to appear at the supplementary examination, if
the revaluation results are declared in 135 to 140 days. 

9. Also,   we   find   that   the   principle   of  lex   non   cogit   ad
impossibilia would apply to the facts of this case.  The petitioners cannot
be asked to do something that is impossible and is not within the reach
of the petitioners.   The petitioners had applied for revaluation and it
was   the   duty   of   the   respondent   No.2­University   to   reevaluate   the
answer­sheets  within a reasonable time.  If the University was at fault
in not declaring the revaluation results of the petitioners before the
stipulated date, i.e. 25/09/2015, the petitioners cannotbenon­suited for
not submitting the mark­sheets before that date.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6293    OF    2015
 Ms. Sneha Fulchand Hargude, 
...VERSUS... 
 Joint   Director   of   Technical   Education,

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
      CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
      DATED  : 01.03.2016
Citation: 2016(3) ALLMR577

Print Page

MALE STUDENTS CAN NOW FILE SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS AS PER NEW UGC REGULATIONS

The University Grants Commission has notified India’s first gender-neutral Regulations relating to Sexual harassment. New UGC regulations on Sexual harassment prevention and prohibition which was notified last month, has made sexual harassment a gender neutral affair and now male students and students of the third gender in universities can also lodge complaints against sexual harassment faced by them. 

The UGC (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) notified recently says that it is the responsibility of Higher Educational Institutions to ‘act decisively against all gender based violence perpetrated against employees and students of all sexes recognising that primarily women employees and students and some male students and students of the third gender are vulnerable to many forms of sexual harassment and humiliation and exploitation’ 

Print Page

Whether appearing in two examinations simultaneously for same year amounts to using unfair means in examination?

Before us, Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel for the appellant has made a neat legal argument. He submits that though the impugned judgment proceeds on the basis that appearing in two examinations simultaneously for the same year is violation of the Regulations of the Board, this reason given by the High Court is clearly unsustainable inasmuch as no such Regulation is shown by the Board which prohibited any such candidate to appear in two examinations in the same year. The learned senior counsel further argued that the impugned order passed by the respondents for confiscating his Certificate of Intermediate exam was, otherwise also, contrary to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no show cause notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before passing such an order, which was passed belatedly after a period of nine years from the passing of the said examination by the appellant.

7. We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned senior counsel are valid in law and have to prevail. The High Court has been influenced by the argument of the respondents that simultaneous appearance in two examinations by the appellant in the same year was 'contrary to the Regulations'. However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. Curiously, no such Regulation has been pointed out even by the respondents. On our specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents to this effect, he expressed his inability to show any such Regulation or any other rule or provision contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Supplementary Regulations of 1976 framed under the aforesaid Act or in any other governing Regulations. Therefore, the entire foundation of the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous.

8. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant's intermediate examination and result thereof was not in question before the U.P. Board. No illegality in the admission in that class has been pointed out by the respondents. The alleged charge of simultaneously appearing in two examinations, one of the U.P. Board and other of the Sanskrit Board, was with respect to Class X and equivalent examination which did not relate to admission in intermediate course. The only provision for canceling the said admission is contained in Regulation (1) of Chapter VI-B. It details the procedure for passing the order of punishment canceling intermediate results and, inter alia, prescribes that a committee consisting of three different members is to be constituted and entrusted with the responsibility of looking into and disposing of cases relating to unfair means and award appropriate penalty as specified in the Regulations itself. However, there is no allegation of any unfair means adopted by the appellant in the instant case and, therefore, that Regulation has no applicability. Even otherwise, no such committee was constituted. Therefore, having taken admission in Intermediate on the basis of past certificate issued by a separate Board, which was recognised, and not on the basis of the result of Class X of the U.P. Board, the appellant derived no advantage from his examination of the U.P. Board while seeking admission in Intermediate course. Thus, from any angle the matter is to be looked into, the impugned orders dated April 20, 2011 and May 10, 2011 passed by the respondents are null and void, apart from the fact that they are in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Supreme Court of India

Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs State Of Up And Ors on 5 January, 2016

Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman

NON-REPORTABLE

                       
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11   OF 2016
                  (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 2964 OF 2015)
Citation;(2016) 3 SCC521

Print Page