*Lays stress on improving standard of education
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Dec 8: In a landmark judgment, State High Court has upheld the decision of University of Jammu to reduce the intake seats of several private BEd Colleges on the basis of mass absenteeism and said that decision was the most appropriate measure for restoring the health of these institutions. It has also made it clear that Universities have vast powers to do all such acts as may be requisite in order to further the objects of varsity as a teaching affiliating or examining body.
While upholding the decision of the Jammu University, the High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by the aggrieved BEd Colleges, which have been given explicit message that they are under an obligation and responsibility to maintain higher standard of discipline and education.
These petitions were filed before the High Court by the private BEd Colleges after University of Jammu by virtue of a decision taken in the 6th meeting of its College Development Council held on July 3, 2014 devised a formula to reduce the intake seats of those BEd Colleges which were plagued with the evil of non-attendance of students.
Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi appearing for the petitioners assailed the reduction in intake mainly on the ground that the decision was totally illegal, arbitrary and violates the fundamental right of the petitioners. “Before taking the decision, respondents were required to afford each petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard by issuing show cause notice asking them to explain their position”, he added.
Due to arbitrary decision of the University, the colleges have been put to financial hardship as they have put in place state-of-art infrastructure commensurate to their sanctioned intake and have engaged specialized faculty paying them handsome salaries, he argued, adding the inspection reports on the basis of which the reduction in intake was decided, was motivated and manoeuvred.
Stating that reduction in seats violates Article 14 of the Constitution, Mr Sethi said, “there is no provision for reducing the seats merely on the basis of shortage in attendance and the decision, therefore, is bad in the eyes of law and is a colorable decision”. He also questioned the jurisdiction of College Development Council to take such a decision and said that formula devised by the CDC was neither laid before the University Council nor was approved by the Council.
On the other side, Advocate Wasim Sadiq Nargal, counsel for the University of Jammu, submitted detailed account of the facts in relation to the decision to reduce the intake seats. He said that monitoring mechanism and formula to reduce the intake of the BEd Colleges having less than 75% average attendance in three surprise checkings/inspections was devised by the CDC pursuant to a resolution adopted in the 3rd CDC meeting held on March 11, 2013 and was endorsed by the University Syndicate in its 102nd meeting held on September 23, 2013 and finally confirmed by the University Council in its 75th meeting held on October 11, 2013.
Pointing to the arguments of Mr Sethi that absenteeism is related to students for which they may earn disqualification to appear in examination but the colleges cannot be penalized for an act of the students, Mr Nargal said, “University having granted affiliation to the colleges has an obligation and responsibility to ensure that they maintain higher standard of discipline and education”, adding “maintenance of higher standard becomes even of more essence when it comes to BEd Colleges because these are the institutions engaged in imparting training to the teachers, who are builders of the nation”.
About the financial aspect, Mr Nargal submitted that financial viability of the colleges cannot be allowed to survive at the cost of the standard of education.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Janak Raj Kotwal observed, “the record shows that an astonishingly contemptuous situation was created in majority of the BEd Colleges. It is disturbing to note that in one of the colleges attendance against 326 admitted students on a particular day was 12 and in another attendance was 7 against 227”.
“To reduce the intake of students for one session is the most appropriate measure for restoring the health of these colleges and providing them opportunity to create suitable conditions for next academic session”, Justice Kotwal said, adding “correct it is that absenteeism has its fall out on a student but situation would be disastrous when it comes to mass absenteeism. What would be the logic in running an educational institution if a situation is allowed to arise in which vast majority of its students are debarred from taking part in examination due to shortfall in attendance”.
“The most shocking aspect of the scenario was that the management of the colleges had been unable to exercise control and arrest the rot even after and knowing well that their affiliating authority has taken the matter seriously and the attention notices having been issued to them in the first half of the academic session 2012-13 and the rot spilled over to the session 2013-14”, the High Court said.
Stating that Clause 13 of Section 5(2) of the Universities Act confers vast power on university to take decisions aimed at furthering the objects of varsity as a teaching affiliating or examining body, High Court said, “University’s decision is certainly not aimed at punishing the petitioners and is to restore health of these institutions lest it comes to their disaffiliation”.
With these observations, Justice Kotwal upheld the University’s decision to reduce the intake seats of several colleges and dismissed the writ petitions. However, High Court observed, “health of an institution cannot be restored if it is relegated to the verge of collapse due to inadequacy of resources. The object may not be achieved if the colleges are made to run with meager number of students, which creates hurdles in meeting operational costs”.
Stating that financial viability of these colleges was not given any attention by the University authorities, Justice Kotwal directed the University to accord reconsideration to the matter on this score to increase the limit of intake seats for the session 2014-15 to a reasonable level. “University may issue requisite directions to the colleges to make up the deficiency of the students, who are granted admission pursuant to this judgment”, High Court said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel