Judgment:
V.S. Kokje, J.
1. This case was heard finally with the consent of parties at the motion hearing stage itself. The Petitioner is a student of Christian College, Indore and a student leader. He had enrolled for the diploma course in Private Investigations started by the Christian College. Later on he came to know that the course was unauth-orisedly started by the College and permission to start course was not taken from Respondent No. 3 - Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalya as also the Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog which according to the Petitioner was a statutory requirement for starting the course.
2. It is contended that under Section 6(1) of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (The University Act) the University is empowered to provide for instruction in such branches of learning as the University may, from time to time determine. The University is empowered to lay down the courses of instructions for various examinations and in institute degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions. Section 27 of the University Act enumerates the faculties that the University may establish and Section 28 and Statute No. 10 lays down the subject to be taught under the faculty. An application for admission for educational institution has to be made for starting a new subject, faculty, post-graduate class in existing non-government College before 28th February preceding the academic year from which the affiliation is sought. The forms for making application are also prescribed. The application form for affiliation in a new subject/faculty or postgraduate classes has to be accompanied by a certificate from the Ayog to the effect that the Ayog had permitted the addition of the new subject or faculty or post-graduate class. How the application shall be processed as also been prescribed. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the procedure for opening of a new course has not been followed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the College Authorities and, therefore, the commencement of the course is illegal. The Petitioner has therefore prayed that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 be directed to stop the aforesaid course started by it. A direction on Respondent No. 3 has been prayed for to withdraw the recognition of Respondents No. 1 and 2 if, they do not desist in their action and a direction against Respondent No. 4 the Ayog to stop the funds to Respondents No. 1 and 2 if, they do not stop the course has also been prayed for.
3. Respondent No. 4 has filed a reply and supporting the petitioner. It was contended that after it came to the knowledge of Respondent No. 4 that such a course was opened, enquiries were made from the College Authorities. The Respondent No. 1 thereupon sought sanction of the Ayog for starting the course. The Ayog appointed one man committee to inspect the College and make a report. On 16-8-1993 the one man committee reported that the College should not be given permission to start the course before settling certain points with the College. These points were communicated to the Respondent No. 1. The College sent its comments to the Ayog and the matter was again referred to the one man committee. On perusing the comments the one man committee recommended rejection of the application for permission to open the course. Thus, the stand taken by the Respondent No. 4 Ayog is that the opening and the continuation of the course is unauthorised.
4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the College Authorities in their return have taken a stand that the course started by them does not need any permission or affiliation from the University or the Ayog. They have also taken a stand that they have not represented that any University Diploma or certificate would be awarded to the students on the completion of the course. Their contention is that no course which is not enumerated in the curriculum and syllabus of the University needs any permission form the University or the Ayog.
5. Some students prosecuting the course had applied for intervention and were heard at the time of hearing of the case. On behalf of the Petitioner strong reliance was placed on the recent celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178 : (1993 AIR SCW 863) to emphasise that right to education is implicit in and flows from the right to life guaranteed by Article 21. However, we do not think that for the decision of this case Unni Krishnan's case (supra) will have great relevance. Actually, what is being sought to be got decided in this case is the question whether Respondents No. 1 and 2 are entitled to start the course without permission from Respondents No. 3 and 4. To our mind that question has to be determined in a lis between Respondents No. 1 and 2 on the one hand and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the other. As at present, the contention of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 is that no sanction is necessary for opening the course from Respondents No. 3 and 4 and this, they have communicated to Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. If, the Respondents No. 3 and 4 take action against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 asking Respondents No. 1 and 2 to stop the course or face disaffiliation and stoppage of grant to its other course also, they will have to give a proper and adequate hearing to Respondents No. I and 2 and if when they finally take action against Respondents No. 1 and 2 they may bring the matter to the court. On the other hand, if Respondents No. 3 and 4 are persuaded by Respondents No. 1 and 2 to take a view that no permission is needed for starting the course or if permission is needed there was a case for grant of it that is the end of the matter so far as Respondents are concerned. If the Petitioner then feels aggrieved he may canvass his grievance against all the Respondents in a petition if he so chooses. At present the Respondents No. 3 and 4 are of the same view as the Petitioner is and no direction can be given against them without waiting for the action which they may take. No direction can be issued against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 either as that will be pre-empting and for closing the issues which they want to raise at an appropriate time before or against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
We therefore, find that in this petition no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. The petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.