Parul University vs Council Of Architecture

Jayant Nath, J

This hearing is conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL. No.31009/2020(exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM APPL. No.31008/2020

This application is filed praying for an interim relief to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed by the respondent whereby

the sanctioned intake of the Parul Institute of Architecture & Research for its B.Arch. course has been reduced from 80 seats to 20 seats for the

present academic year.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner- Parul University is a private university established under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009.

The petitioner has 38 constituent colleges within its ambit including Parul Institute of Architecture & Research. The Parul Institute of Architecture &

Research(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Architecture Institute’) was established in 2012-13. The Architecture Institute has approved capacity

of 80 seats. The Architecture Institute has been granted extension on an annual basis and received its extension of approval for the present academic

year 2020-21 on 16.06.2020 issued by the respondent.

For the purpose of qualifying for admission to B.Arch course and preparation of merit list of students, the respondent conducts the National

Aptitude Test in Architecture (in short ‘NATA’) since 2006. For the present academic year on account of the pandemic, the same was delayed

and was ultimately held on 29.08.2020 and 12.09.2020. Normally, NATA is conducted physically across identified test centers across India. However,

on account of the present pandemic, NATA was conducted online as a home-based test with the candidates appearing remotely in the examination

from their residences.

As required by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner had advertised about NATA test. Further the petitioner is one of the most searched

institutions in the State of Gujarat. Therefore, the petitioner received several queries from aspiring students for a career in architecture and admission

prospects at the petitioner. The petitioner, it is stated, uses this date obtained through these queries for publication and dissemination of knowledge

regarding NATA as permitted by the respondent. For the past two years, Ar.Harshit Sadh, former faculty member was designated as the nodal

officer for admission related queries at the institute.

On 14.09.2020, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the Architecture Institute to show cause in relation to the incidents of mass cheating

which occurred during NATA exam held on 12.09.2020 on the whatsapp group created by Ar.Harsit Sadh. On 18.09.2020, the respondent took a

decision to constitute an Enquiry Committee to look into the incidents of mass cheating during the conduct of the said exam on 29.08.2020 and

12.09.2020. The petitioner was directed not to grant admission to any student in the Architecture Institute for its B.Arch course for the academic year

2020-21.

During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner terminated the services of Ar.Harshit Sadh, Ar.(Ms).Namrata Chauhan was suspended pending

formalisation of inquiry findings and Professor (Ar.) Bhagyajit Rawal was directed to demit his office of Dean, Faculty of Architecture.

Subsequently, after completion of the enquiry, on 02.11.2020, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the Architecture Institute calling upon is

to show cause as to why the intake of the Architecture Institution should not be reduced to zero for the academic year 2020-21 onwards and a penalty

of Rs.5 lakhs be not imposed on the Institute. The show cause notice was also accompanied with a report of Enquiry Committee dated 18.10.2020.

Pursuant to a personal hearing on 25.11.2020, the respondent passed the impugned order reducing the sanctioned intake of the Architecture Institute

from 80 seats to 20 seats for the academic year 2020-

Hence, the present writ petition challenging the aforenoted impugned order dated 25.11.2020.

The respondent have filed its counter affidavit opposing the present writ petition. Pleadings have been completed.

I have heard arguments on the present application for interim stay. I have heard submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:

i) He has urged that as per the enquiry report, it is only one particular faculty member, who was involved in the entire episode. For the misconduct of a

faculty member, it has been urged that the Architecture Institute should not be penalised.

ii) That immediately after the event and the enquiry, the petitioner has terminated the services of the faculty members within 15 days. Hence,

whatever steps the petitioner have to take they have taken.

iii) It has been strongly urged that the impugned order is disproportionate to the alleged offence. Due to the misdeeds of the faculty member, the

petitioner has been penalised by reduction of its intake from 80 students to 20 students. The petitioner institute is a self financed institute and the

reduction of intake will severely economically and financially prejudice the petitioner.

iv) It has been urged that the enquiry that has been conducted against the petitioner is vitiated as being contrary to the principles of natural justice and

being not based on cogent material and facts. There is non-application of mind and even the statements of the students that were relied upon have not

been given to the petitioner.

v) It has been urged that the only power that is vested for punishment against the petitioner is under section 20 of the Architect Act, 1972. This power

of withdrawal has to be done by the Central Government and not by the respondent as done herein.

vi) It is urged that balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and this punishment in question can easily be postponed for the next academic

year till pendency of the present writ petition. No prejudice would be caused in that eventuality to the respondent.

vii) He further relies upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of State of Goa v. Union of India, 2008 SCC

OnLine Bom 554 to submit that the respondent herein, namely, Council of Architecture has no powers to reduce seats of an Architecture College.

Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the enquiry report and the findings recorded to show that there are grave allegations

made against the petitioner university for having helped the students to cheat in NATA examination which have been proved in the course of enquiry.

He has also pointed out that the respondent has powers under section 21 of the Architects Act to impose the present penalty.

I may now look at the enquiry committee report dated 18.10.2020 and other connected documents. The show cause notice dated 14.09.2020

makes the following relevant averments:

“It has been brought to the notice of the Council of Architecture that Faculty of Architecture, Parul Institute of Architecture and Research, Parul

University is found to be involved in creating and managing a Whatsapp Group named ""Parul Entrance Awareness"" to upload and share the pictures

of online Second Test of National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA) 2020 held on September 12, 2020, to allow mass cheating for its group

members during the course of examination.

xxxxxâ€​

The Enquiry Committee Report dated 18.10.2020 notes that it has come to the notice of the respondent’s counsel that during the test in

question the students shared images and took help of unfair means during the course of examination. Parul University was found to be a major culprit

in the cheating. It formed a whatsapp group where some students were found using mobile phones for doing online cheating/sharing question images.

According to the respondent, they came across the existence of a whatsapp groups which was created by Parul University and administered by Ar.

Harshit Shaad, one of the Assistant Professors and Ar. Ms.Namrata Singh intern at Parul University.

The Enquiry Committee made the following observations/findings:

“1. The Parul University with Architecture Faculty Members created a Whatsapp Group with the phone number registered in the name of Parul

University to help the interested students by coaching and guiding them about NATA 2020 examination.

Mass Cheating was conducted by students with the help of the faculty members of the Parul University in both the tests by posting live answers.

The University failed to conduct any and inquiry and take any action against the guilty Faculty members since the Whatsapp group was created to

help the university in getting students who pass the NATA test.

The replies and answers given by the representatives were evasive and full facts and not disclosed before the Committee by them.

The committee took note on the fact that 35 students who were added/participant in the respective PIAR/Parul Awareness Group have already

found guilty for using unfair means by the different Unfair Means committee.

The action taken by the University against the faculty members is not sufficient to stop the University and its faculty from undertaking such illegal

and unethical activities and hence the actual beneficiary i.e. the Parul University must be penalized,

A. If recommending a definite punishment alongside the further investigation by the cybercrime cell of police, shall not be read as pronouncement

before completion of conspiracy theory trial ...at the 1st stage.

B. Also it might be difficult to justify how the committee reached at the suggested fine amount, since the committee members are also of opinion to

recommend in reducing the intake & registration of an FIR to collect the authenticated evidences by investigative agencies to legally sustain the

source of evidence on which these decisions are taken ...â€​

The Enquiry Committee gave the following recommendations:

“RECOMMENDATIONS:

....

Stage One (Immediate)

the Parul University be barred from making any admission to B.Arch. Course for the academic session 2020-21,

a penalty of Rs.5.0/- Lakhs ( Five Lacs Only) be imposed them so as to make it a deterrent for any other person/ institution to get themselves

involved in such illegal, unethical an criminal activities.

Stage Two ( after getting their report or 2 months or whichever is less)

The case for professional misconduct may be filed against Ar.Bhagyajit Rawal, Ar. Harshit Sadh and Ar. Namrata Singh for defaming the

profession of Architect; and

The University may be directed to complete their internal inquiry in a time bound manner and the report may be submitted to the Council for further

consideration and for taking appropriate action against the erring faculty and to decide the status of the institution for academic session 2021-22

onwards.â€​

The report is signed by the five members who are all architects.

The impugned order dated 25.11.2020, after receipt of a response to the show cause notice, concludes as follows:

“The Executive committee, after going through the reply of the university vis-a-vis the report of the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Council

and upon hearing the representatives of the University at its online meeting held on November 12, 2020 came to the following conclusions:

The Parul University with Architecture Faculty Members created a whatsapp group with the phone number registered in the name of Parul

University to help the interested students by coaching and guiding them about NATA 2020 examination.

Mass cheating was conducted by students with the help of the faculty member(s) of the Parul University in both the tests by posting live answers.

The faculty members(s) of the University were indulged in the facilitating and organizing cheating and use of unfair means in NATA 2020 for

candidate in the official group of the University on NATA Test held on August 12, 2020 and September 12 2020.

The University failed to conducted any inquiry and take any action against the guilty Faculty member(s), in time, since ‘the Whatsapp group was

created to help the university in getting students who pas the NATA Test. The university took cognizance only when the Council reported the matter

to it. It is incomprehensible to assume that the university was unaware of the illegal activities being undertaken on its official whatsapp group.

The replies and answers given by the University or its representatives were evasive and full facts were not disclosed before the Committee by

them or even in the reply dated 04.11.2020.

The ultimate beneficiary in the matter is University and the faculty involved seem to have no personal gain out of the same. Therefore, it seems that

the faculty is being made scape goat by the university to account for its own failures. Further, it is incorrect to infer that the admissions are beyond the

control of the university as they are being managed by ACPC, Gujarat since the students are being oriented to opt for the university during admission

process counselling by providing them assistance through illegal means.

The students who benefitted from the mass cheating during NATA 2020 Examination have also admitted and corroborated the fact during the

course of their hearings before the NATA Inquire Committees appointed by the Council, that the University and its faculty members were involved in

the entire episode and they helped the students during examination.

The action taken by the University against the faculty member(s) is not sufficient to stop the University and its faculty from undertaking such illegal

and unethical activities. It may be mentioned that Parul University, declared as a Private University under Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, is

itself an independent authority to administer and manage the affairs of the University. The University is also responsible to establish, administer and

manage its constituent colleges and centres and is required to supervise and regulate the discipline of students, faculty and staff of the University.

However, the University chose not to apprehend, detect and act against such a massive scam being orchestrated by its faculty right under its nose

even though it happened on August 29 & repeated on September 12, 2020.

Enquiry Report of the university also makes it clear that the faculty and staff was involved in cheating and misconduct directly or indirectly which is

an offence. The Executive Committee further observed that the mass cheating organized on official WhatsApp group of the Parul University has

caused serious damage to the sanctity of the NA TA 2020, irreversible loss of goodwill & reputation of the Council of Architecture. The Executive

Committee opined that strict action must be taken against the University, on similar lines to those students who were found to be indulging in the unfair

means and whose NATA 2020 results were cancelled, to act as a deterrent and to set a precedence for the future. The action is much needed to

restore the credibility of NATA Test which is the only national level aptitude test in Architecture for passing Aptitude Test in Architecture for

admission to B.Arch. Course to seek admissions in Government as well as Private architectural institutions.

In view of the above, the Executive Committee decided that the intake of the institution in B.Arch. degree course being imparted be reduced to 20 for

the academic session 2020-2021, to act as deterrent for Parul University for having indulged in unethical practices through its faculty members to

allure and misguide students and helping them in using unfair means to qualify the NATA 2020 on the pretext of admission counselling of students in

the Institution and for its failure to exercise proper regulatory and disciplinary control over the faculty and its staff for misuse of its resources and data

of students available with the Institution University for organising cheating in NATA 2020.â€​

Hence, the impugned order takes a decision that the intake of B.Arch degree course being imparted by the petitioner be reduced to 20 for the

academic year 2020-21 to act as a deterrent for Parul University for having indulged in unethical practices through its faculty members to allure and

misguide students and helping them in using unfair means to qualify the NATA 2020 exam.

A perusal of the Inquiry Committee Report and the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 clearly shows that grave and serious allegations have been

made against the petitioner of having participated in organised mass cheating in NATA 2020-21 exam. The conclusions of facts are based on the

enquiry committee report consisting of five architects. They have examined two of the students who were the part of the whatsapp group, namely,

Ms.Aditi Pathak and Mr.Aazad Golakia. They also posed questions to Dr.M.N.Patel, Vice Chancellor, Parul University and Professor Rawal, Dean

Faculty of Architecture, Parul University. Based on this evidence the aforesaid findings of facts have been recorded. The procedure followed is prima

facie fair. In my opinion, at this stage, no prima facie case has been made out to warrant passing of any interim order in favour of the petitioner.

A plea has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondent does not have any powers to reduce the intake in the

college of the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon section 21 of the Architect Act.

I also cannot help noticing the extension of approval granted by the respondents on 16.06.2020 for granting approval for a five year full time

Bachelor of Architecture course with an intake of 80 students for the academic year 2020-21 in favour of the petitioner. The last para of the approval

dated 16.06.2020 reads as follows:

“The Council reserves the right to carry out surprise inspection of institution at any point of time in order to verify the compliance made by the

institution and to ascertain that the institution is imparting architectural course as per the Norms prescribed by the Council. In case any discrepancy in

regard to the information supplied by the institution or non-compliance of the Council Norms is found at any stage, strict penal action shall be initiated

by the Council against the institution including withdrawal of approval and/or transfer of existing students to other institutions.â€​

Clearly, these are issues which would require a detailed consideration at a later stage at the time of adjudication of the writ petition.

I reiterate my view that the allegations made against the petitioner are grave. The petitioner has failed to make out a prima facia case.

There is no merit in the application. The same is dismissed.

W.P.(C) No.9694/2020

List for arguments on 25.02.2021.