Surya College of Education vs Chaudhary Devi Lal University and Another

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to allocate the students to the petitioner college, for M.Ed. Course for the academic sessions 2012-13, from amongst the successful students in the Entrance Examination Result dated 16.11.2012, declared by the respondents in the ongoing admission process. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had been running from pillar to post, seeking the redressal of its genuine grievances. However, no action was being taken by the respondent authorities. The petitioner had to approach this court earlier also by way of CWP No. 23483 of 2012, which was disposed of with appropriate directions, vide order dated 10.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that since the respondents are sitting tight over the matter, they may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner without any further loss of time and decide the same, in accordance with law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not fulfilled the necessary requirement for issuing a writ of mandamus in its favour and against the respondent authorities.

During the course of hearing, when a specific query was put by the court to the learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing of the order dated 10.12.2012 by this court, when and how the petitioner has approached the respondent authorities by way of any comprehensive representation or justice demand notice, seeking redressal of its grievance, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that no such representation or justice demand notice, has been moved by the petitioner to the respondent authorities.

It is pertinent to refer to the order dated 10.12.2012, passed by this court and the same reads as under:--

The petitioner-college is recognised by the NCTE since 2008 for 35 seats for M.Ed. Course. The College is having affiliation from Kurukshetra University. It is claimed that the college has the requisite faculty of one Professor, one Reader and three Lecturers. The facts were ascertained by the University by extending the provisional affiliation from year after year. Subsequently, the college has been shifted to Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa. The petitioner-college has given an advertisement in the news papers for appointment of faculty members. The University was intimated to detail a representative to be part of the selection committee. Since the selections were made, Lecturers, namely, Rajesh Kumar and Pushkrit Gupta were approved by the University on 5.3.2012. The University also conducted inspection on 24.1.2012 and 28.2.2012 and it was intimated that the college does not have Professor and Reader in the College for M.Ed. Classes. This observation is claimed to be incorrect as a Professor was present and had returned from long leave. The petitioner-college replied to the deficiencies. Thereafter, the college was re-inspected. The college again advertised another post of Lecturer and communicated to the University for constituting a selection committee, which was constituted on 9.5.2012. The names of Dr. Manoj Kumar and Dr. Madup Kumar as Reader and Lecturer, respectively, were recommended and sent for approval. The selection was made in the presence of Vice Chancellor, nominee and experts from other Universities.

On 18.6.2012, the University wrote to the petitioner to readvertise the posts. The college, in the meantime, was also conveyed proceedings for disaffiliation as being started. In the meantime, the college has also been graded ''B'' by NAAC for 5 years.

The college applied for provisional affiliation, but the approval is pending with the University. The respondents have again constituted an inspection team, but no inspection has been carried out. In this background, the only prayer made in the petition is to issue writ directing the respondents to inspect the petitioner-college in compliance with their own order dated 30.10.2012 and constitute a committee for the selection of one professor in the college.

For this limited prayer, this writ petition came up for hearing and was adjourned to 17.12.2012 when similar cases are coming up for hearing. The petitioner has now moved an application that the counselling is fixed for 11.12.2012. Unless the deficiencies pointed out by the Universities are attended to, it would not be appropriate to allow the petitioner to participate in the counselling.

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the University to carry out inspection and also nominate an expert for selection of a Professor in the college as is prayed for in the present writ petition. Let the needful be done as early as possible.

Thereafter, the petitioner was intimated by the respondent- University, vide letter dated 13.12.2012 about the constitution of the Selection Committee for selection of Professors, Lecturers and Librarians in the petitioner college. Relevant part of this communication reads as under:--

The President,

Surya College of Education,

Vill. Baliala, PO Tohana,

Distt. Fatehabad.

Sub: Constitution of Selection Committee for selection of Professor, Lecturers and Librarian in Surya College of Education, Vill. Baliala, PO Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad.

Sir/Madam,

I am directed to inform you that the Vice Chancellor has been pleased to constitute the following Selection Committee to select the Professor, Lecturers and Librarian:

President of the College Managing Committee or his nominee (Convener)

Secretary of the College Managing Committee or his nominee (in case of selection of Professor only).

Principal of the College (in case of selection of Lecturers only)

The Vice Chancellor''s nominee and the subject experts will scrutinize the applications before starting the interview for the purpose of eligibility. The sitting charges @ Rs. 1000/- per member, per sitting and TA/DA as per rules will be paid to the members by the College Management on the spot, even if no candidate is found eligible. No amount over and above to this is payable to the members in any manner.

All the members of the above Committee are requested to kindly participate in the meeting of the above Selection Committee as and when fixed.

You are therefore, requested to fix the date of interview in consultation with the Selection Committee.

In response to the above said communication dated 13.12.2012, petitioner vide his request letter dated 18.12.2012 sought reconstitution of the Selection Committee, on the ground that Prof. Anu Shukla was stated to be out of station and would be returning back on 28.12.2012, whereas Prof. Rita Chopra was stated to be out of the country. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent-University was not giving any satisfactory answer, whether any Selection Committee was reconstituted or not. However, it is not the prayer made in the instant petition. The relevant prayer clause reads as under:--

i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent to allocate the students to the petitioner college for the M.Ed. Course for the academic sessions 2012-13 from successful students in an Entrance Examination Result dated 16.11.2012 declared by respondents in the ongoing admission process;

iii) to direct the respondents to provide the admissions to the petitioner college provisionally during the pendency of the writ petition.

These two prayer clauses were exactly the same at prayer clause numbers (iii) and (iv) in the earlier petition bearing CWP No. 23483 of 2012, filed by the petitioner and have also been reproduced in para 12 of the instant petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any averment taken by the petitioner in this regard nor any such document has been placed on the record, whether any representation or a justice demand notice was moved by the petitioner to the respondent authorities, pointing out its precise grievance and seeking redressal thereof. On the other hand, it seems that petitioner could not remove the deficiencies as pointed out by the respondent university and also as per the directions issued by this court vide above said order dated 10.12.2012, because it is clear from the averments taken in para 16 of this writ petition.

In view of the above, the only question of law that falls for consideration of this court is, whether it is sine qua non for the petitioner to put his/her demand for justice before the concerned authority, before approaching this court, seeking a writ of mandamus.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any averment in this regard or any document to the effect that before approaching this court by way of instant petition, any right of the petitioner has been infringed and thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities, raising its grievance by making necessary representation, demanding the consideration of the rights of the petitioner and seeking redressal of its grievance. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any difficulty, which might have been faced by the petitioner, while not approaching the respondent authorities by making the appropriate representation.

In view of what has been observed above, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the necessary requirement of law has not been fulfilled by the petitioner, before approaching this court. Before seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioner was under legal obligation to show infringement or denial of any of its rights and thereafter, moving necessary representation to the concerned authority pointing out the infringement or denial of its rights, besides seeking redressal of its grievance, followed by inaction on the part of respondent authorities. Since the petitioner has failed to satisfy the above said requirements of law, the instant petition is not maintainable in the present form.

The view taken by this court finds support from the judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Berry and Another Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, . The relevant observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court read as under:--

In the petition of K.N. Kapur and others, we do not even find an assertion that any representation was made against any violation of a petitioner''s right. Hence, the rule recognised by this Court in Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, that a demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for direction or Writ of Mandamus, would also operate against the petitioners.

Respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry, K.N. Kapur and others case (supra), it is unhesitatingly held that the present petition is misconceived and is not maintainable in the present form, at this stage. I say so because the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed in laying down the basic foundation of the case in view of the law noticed hereinabove.

However, lest this order is misunderstood, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the respondent authorities by moving the necessary representation raising its demand for justice and seeking redressal of its grievance. Further, it goes without saying that if the petitioner approaches the respondent authorities by way of an appropriate representation or justice demand notice, the competent authority shall consider the claim of the petitioner, dispassionately and expeditiously, passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law. With the observations made above, the present petition stands disposed of.