Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
WPs.39796-39801/2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.39796-39801/2012 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN: 1. Anoop Abraham (lep05me003)
Aged about 24 years,
IV B.E.(Mechanical Engineering)
East Point College of Engineering
Technology,
Hirandahalli,
Near Avalahalli, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 049.
Sindhoor Sagar H.D. (lep05me070)
Aged about 25 years, IV B.E.(Mechanical Engineering)
East Point College of Engineering
Technology,
Hirandahalli,
Near Avalahalli, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 049.
Ravi Prakash (lep07me042)
Aged about 24 years,
IV B.E.(Mechanical Engineering)
East Point College of Engineering
Technology,
Hirandahalli,
Near Avalahalli, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 049.
Sashanka Borah (lep08me082)
Aged about 22 years,
IV B.E.(Mechanical Engineering)
East Point College of Engineering
WPs.39796-39801/2012 2
Technology,
Hirandahalli,
Near Avalahalli, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 049.
Roy Skaria (lep09me081)
Aged about 21 years,
IV B.E.(Mechanical Engineering)
East Point College of Engineering
Technology,
Hirandahalli,
Near Avalahalli, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 049.
Anindya Moitra (lep08is009)
Aged about 24 years,
IV B.E.(Mechanical Engineering)
East Point College of Engineering
Technology,
Hirandahalli,
Near Avalahalli, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 049.
… PETITIONERS
(By Sri M N Venkata Reddy, Adv. for Dr S. Arumugham, Adv.)
AND:
Visveswaraya Technological University
Represented by its Registrar,
Santibatawada Road,
Belgaum 590 014.
The Regional Director
Bangalore Region,
Visveswaraya Technological University,
Bangalore.
The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore 560 001.
WPs.39796-39801/2012 3
The University Grants Commission
Represented by its Chairman,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002.
The Principal
East Point College of Engineering Technology,
Hirandahalli,
Near Avalahalli, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 049.
… RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R.Omkumar, AGA. for R3 )
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct to strike down the VTU autonomous Colleges Statute 2006 framed under amended Section 43(A) of the VTU Act, 1994 vide Annexure-G – Statute 2006 since colourable and ultra vires and nonest and etc.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.3.
In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the VTU Autonomous Colleges Statute 2006 framed under the amended provisions of Section 43(A) of the VTU Act, 1994 vide Annexure-G alleging that the same is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have also challenged the Regulations of VTU at O.B. 1.2, 3.4 and 7.2 regulating the degree of Bachelor of
WPs.39796-39801/2012 4
Engineering/Technology with effect from 2006-07, extract of which is produced at Annexure-C, on the ground that they are discriminatory.
The main contentions urged in these writ petitions are that the rigor and restrictions imposed on the students who have taken admission and are pursuing their studies in the VTU are stringent compared to the rules and regulations governing the students who are admitted by other autonomous universities. Several other contentions are urged by the petitioners.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for both parties submit that writ petitions filed in W.P.Nos.3820- 3824/2012, wherein similar reliefs were sought challenging the statute and the regulations framed have been dismissed on 03.10.2012 by following the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 9, 10 & 11 of the judgment dated 28.09.2012 passed in W.A.No.5410/2012. The said observations are extracted hereunder: “9. There is considerable merit and substance in the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the VTU that the writ petitioners do not
WPs.39796-39801/2012 5
have any right to challenge the vires or legality of the VTU Statute or the VTUACS 2006. The main grievance of the writ petitioners is that the VTU does not enable them to overcome either shortage of attendance or failure to obtain passing percentages, by holding a supplementary or make-up Semester examination, as is prevalent practice in Autonomous Colleges. Contrary to the picture which the Petitioners paint it is not possible for the students in the Autonomous Colleges to purchase a passport for lack of attendance or for passing of examination papers to clear the backlog subjects. As we have already noted, the students in this category in Autonomous Colleges have to go through the onerous participation in the supplementary Semester and only if successful, do they advance to the next academic year or odd Semester. Attendance is not an empty formality or a punctilio; it is ordained in order to ensure that the students can gain from the input and knowledge received in supplementary teachings and lectures. The so-called slow learners or weak students in Autonomous Colleges are therefore not in a position of advantage when compared to those in the sundry Affiliated Colleges except that they can avail the remedial classes. So far as the attendance is concerned, it has to be made up and as far as the extra academic attention is concerned, the students in sundry Affiliated Colleges can similarly avail of private tuitions.
WPs.39796-39801/2012 6
We shall now consider whether the equality mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been breached, even a trifle. Almost immediately after we gave ourselves to our constitution, interpretation of Article 14 was called for by the Supreme Court of India. In State of Bombay Vs. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318 it has been clarified that for any classification to be reasonable and constitutional, it must satisfy two tests – firstly, it must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those within and without the grouping; secondly, the differentia must have rational nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved by the sundry segregation.
This enunciation of the law is as old as our Republic. In Chiranjilal Vs. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41 as well as in Ramakrishen Dalmia Vs. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538, even one person or one group set apart from the rest was held not to be unreasonable or unconstitutional provided that severance was conducive to the attainment of the object behind the severance. In D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130, the Constitution Bench held that executive action would not be unconstitutional if the twin tests of (a) a discernible division and (b) intended to achieve a lawful objective, are palpably present.
WPs.39796-39801/2012 7
In the case in hand, there is a clear and intelligible differentia inasmuch as there are sundry Affiliated Colleges on the one hand and the Autonomous Colleges on the other. It is true that all undergraduate students form a composite class of their own and that if any invidious discrimination is meted out to persons in this same class, without any rational basis or relationship with a particular objective, it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as also recently adumbrated in Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority (2010) 7 SCC 129. The stated raison d’etre is that student strength as well as the Colleges attached to the Universities have grown so exponentially that for their viability to be preserved some fragmentation is necessary. The experts have thought that autonomy will be conducive to better educational standards and the Court is not equipped to question that view.
Certainly no empirical/impartial evidence has been disclosed to us to hazard an opinion contrary thereto. Indeed, statistics signal to the contrary. Inequality may have been created and perpetuated, if it is easier for the students in Autonomous Colleges to obtain the B.E. degree; but as we have already reflected above, this is not the case. The students are not able to buy a B.E. degree s was the oblique slant of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot obviously be argued or even expected that all colleges
WPs.39796-39801/2012 8
and institutions must maintain the same standards. In every University there are some Colleges who have achieved academic ascendancy/excellence over others leading to aspiration of students for admission thereto. This is because such colleges have better facilities; a better teaching faculty, better infrastructure, and for this simple reason attract the cream of students. Article 14 does not ordain the academic standards must be lowered so that so- called equality can be obtained. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of VTU Autonomous Colleges Statute, 2006 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Pabitra Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1964 SC 593, to which the learned counsel for the writ petitioners has referred, is of no advantage to their cause. WE are also of the opinion that the decision of the Apex Court in Basheshar Nath Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1959 SC 149 need not be discussed because of the conclusion we have arrived at.”
The validity of the impugned Statute and the Regulations are thus upheld in W.P.Nos.3820-3834/2012 decided on 03.01.2012 following the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench.
WPs.39796-39801/2012 9
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similar matters are taken up before the Apex Court, where the validity of the Statute and Regulations are pending. He, therefore, requests the Court to defer the consideration of this matter till the matter pending before the Apex Court is disposed of. This request cannot be acceded to, since this Court has already pronounced on the validity of the Statute and the Regulations and has upheld the same vide order dated 03.10.2012 passed in W.P.Nos.3820-3834/2012.
Following the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petitions and for the reasons stated in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment dated 28.09.2012 passed in W.A.No.5410/2012, these writ petitions are also dismissed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE
PKS