Punjab University vs Khalsa College of Education

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.

LPA-373-2014, CM-897-2014 (for exemption),

CM-894-2014 (for condonation of delay of 56 days in filing)

CM-895-2014 (for condonation of delay of 62 days in re-filing)

CM-898-2014 (for stay) & CM-899-2014 (For addl. evidence):

We propose to dispose of the batch of these six identical appeals by this common order and for sake of brevity the factual aspects of the controversy are noticed from LPA-373-2013. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

The appellant-University makes an endeavor to assail the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dealing with the batch of cases decided on 30.8.2013. The appeal suffers from gross delays and laches which are not of short periods of time being 56 days in filing and 62 days in re-filing. In substance, the only plea given for delay in filing is that a Committee of Lecturers appointed was looking into the ramifications of the judgment and there were interceding holidays. For condonation of delay in re-filing, the substantive ground is that complete papers to file the LPA were not made available. To say the least, these are hardly legitimate excuses for such inordinate delays and there is, thus, really no merit in the plea of condonation of delay in filing and refiling of the appeal.

Be that as it may, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the controversy.

The dispute is a short one arising from the imposition of monetary penalty by the appellant-University on colleges which have failed to appoint a regular Principal. The learned single Judge has held that there is no such power vested in the University whereby Rs. 50,000/- per month can be imposed as a fine for the period when there was no regular Principal in the colleges.

In respect of the aforesaid, the most important aspect to be noted is that the University itself is a creation of a statute being the Punjab University Act, 1947 and, thus, its powers will only flow from the said Act. In order to administer the University, regulations are framed in terms of the authority vested u/s 31 of the Act. Relevant regulation 11.1 has been reproduced in the impugned order.

It is not in issue that there is no specific power conferred on the Vice-Chancellor or the Syndicate of the University to impose the fine. The only plea, in this behalf urged is that as per Clause (5) of Regulation 11.1, the University has the authority to withdraw affiliation granted to the college in part or in whole. The submission, thus, is that if affiliation itself can be withdrawn, a lesser penalty of a monetary fine is authorised. We are afraid that this is a plea which is only stated to be rejected. A monetary penalty must be authorised through a specific provision in the Act or the regulations and such an authority cannot be assumed in the absence of the provision. On our query, as to why necessary steps are not taken to amend the statute/regulations if the University is of the view that the authority to impose fine should be conferred for better administration, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is considerable correspondence on this issue as the University has been requesting the Central Government for such an authority, but it has not been granted.

The aforesaid, in our view, itself defeats the case of the appellant as the appellant was conscious of the need for amendment to authorise for fine, made the prayer to the concerned authorities, yet it has not elicited a positive response. This does not mean that without authority the University assumes this power.

Learned counsel for the appellant also sought to refer to the U.G.C. (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009, to contend that such a power is also available in view of what is set out therein. In this behalf, Clauses 4.9 and 8.1 have been relied upon which read as under:-

4.9. The Syndicate/Executive Council of the University shall be the ultimate to decide to granting, or not granting, affiliation.

Withdrawal of affiliation.

8.1. The privileges conferred on a college by affiliation may be withdrawn in part of in full, suspended or modified, if the College, on due enquiry, is found to have failed to comply with any of the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinance, the Rules and Regulations or any other direction or instruction of the UGC/University/Statutory/Regulatory body concerned or failed to observe any of the conditions of affiliation or has conducted itself in a manner prejudicial to the academic and administrative standards and interests of the University.

The aforesaid, in our view, does not also assist the appellant in any manner as they are more or less on the same basis as power already conferred on the University, i.e., of taking action qua affiliation if there is non-compliance.

Learned counsel for the appellant also seeks to assail the observations in the impugned order where reference has been made to Regulation 11.2 to contend that this would have no application to the case at hand. The said Regulation 11.2 reads as under:-

11.2. If after enquiry it is found that an affiliated college under private management is not being properly administered the Syndicate may authorise the Vice-Chancellor to appoint a representative or representatives of the University on the Managing body of the College for such period as may be prescribed by the Syndicate.

It appears that the University has not appreciated what has been observed in the impugned order, i.e., that if regular Principal was not appointed and, thus, the Syndicate was of the view that a college was not being administered properly, it was open to the University to appoint a representative of the University on Managing Body of the college for better administration.

We are, thus, of the view that even on merits, no case is made out and the only proper methodology by which such powers can be conferred appears to have already been undertaken by the University by proposing an amendment to the statute and regulations which, unfortunately, so far has not been done.

Dismissed.