Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 7: High Court today upheld the decision of Jammu University and rejected the petition filed by Cosmic College of Education seeking direction for allotment of BEd seats.
In the petition, directions were sought for quashment of decision of Board of Inspection on 30.05.2014 to the extent it declines allotment of 153 seats for the year 2014-15. Moreover, the petitioner college prayed for quashment of decision taken by the respondents to the extent it declines to determine and allot 251 seats for the Session 2014-15 as reflected in the list of colleges participating in Centralized BEd Counselling 2014-15.
After hearing Senior Advocate KS Johal appearing for the petitioner college whereas Advocate WS Nargal appearing for the Jammu University, Justice Bansi Lal Bhat observed, “it appears that the University of Jammu took a policy decision dispensing with the seat allotment formula based on the NAAC Accreditation and Affiliation Status and adopted the mechanism of surprise inspections for allotment of seats to non-Government Colleges of Education”.
“This decision appears to have been taken in the University Council’s 75th meeting held on 11.10.2013 in the backdrop of complaints about deficiencies in the functioning of privately run institutions. According to respondents, the Attendance Monitoring Committee carried out surprise inspection of the petitioner-College on 07.12.2013, 16.01.2014, 23.04.2014 and 21.05.2014 and on the basis of attendance of students reported by the Committee, the average attendance of students was found to be 21.71%”, High Court said.
“This is disputed by the petitioner, who claims such average attendance of students at 45% during the best two out of these inspections taken as proof of attendance. Respondents have specifically denied the allegation that in the inspection conducted on 23.04.2014, 229 students were present in the petitioner-College. It is pleaded that the list of students annexed with the petition appears to be fabricated as the inspection report dated 16.01.2014 clearly mentions that attendance was manipulated and fabricated”, Justice Bhat observed.
According to respondents, the higher number of students found present on the two selected dates of inspection were 82 students on 16.01.2014 and 63 students on 23.04.2014. The average of students during these two inspections conducted in Session 2013-14 is barely 21.71% and on the basis of formula devised by the College Development Council, petitioner-College has been found entitled to 75 seats for the Session 2014-15 which has been enhanced by 30% on the recommendation of Admission Committee thereby raising the number to 98 seats.
Petitioner-College has accordingly been sanctioned 98 seats in addition to 8 management seats and 10 social infrastructure seats. The surprise inspection report dated 23.04.2014 of the Attendance Monitoring Committee reveals that no student was found present in the petitioner-College at the time of Inspection. The enquiry revealed that the students had been deputed for Teaching Practice Course (TPC). Out of 9 TPs, 8 were held at Pathankot in Punjab. The Committee randomly enquired about the status of TPC held at School No.1, 2 and 4 and found that only 50% of the students allotted to these schools were attending the TPC.
The Committee appears to have been informed at the time of subsequent inspection on 21.05.2014 that three TPC were conducted in and around Kathua whereas others were conducted outside Jammu and Kashmir. The Attendance Monitoring Committee, thus, concluded that it was kept in dark in order to mislead. “Viewed thus, the contention raised by petitioner in regard to attendance of students on 23.04.2014 constitutes a question of fact which cannot be decided while exercising writ jurisdiction. Petitioner has not raised any issue in regard to the University decision which adopted the mechanism of surprise inspections and allotment of seats based on these inspections”, High Court said.
“The dispute raised by petitioner is with regard to enforcement of University decision raising disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into while exercising writ jurisdiction. It further appears that the representation of petitioner-College which had been kept on hold in view of pendency of OWP No.1275/2014 has been considered by respondents in compliance to the direction passed by this Court on 28.10.2014 and the same has been rejected. The consideration order dated 7th November, 2014 has not been assailed by the petitioner. In absence thereof, the instant petition would not be maintainable”, Justice Bhat said.
“It also transpires that the seats of petitioner-College determined by respondents on the basis of formula devised by College Development Council have been intimated to petitioner through Communication dated 28.07.2014 and the process of admission to B.Ed. Course for the Session 2014-15 has since culminated”, the court said.
With these observations, court dismissed the petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel