Double fault, says HC
THE HIGH Court here on Friday pulled up the state administration for not providing adequate support and security to the Lucknow University (LU) administration. It directed the administration to make adequate security arrangements in the LU. Top officers of the state, including DGP Bua Singh, principal secretary (Home) Satish Agarwal, commissioner RK Mittal, ADG (Law and Order), SP and others were present in the court.india Updated: Dec 16, 2006 11:15 IST
It was a double whammy for the state government. While on the one hand, the Allahabad High Court on Friday quashed the Mulayam Singh Yadav government’s pet self-centre examination system calling it a system that eroded the very foundation of the education system, on the other hand its Lucknow bench slammed the district administration for doing precious little to improve the situation in the Lucknow University and asked it to rid the campus of criminals
‘Provide security to LU’
THE HIGH Court here on Friday pulled up the state administration for not providing adequate support and security to the Lucknow University (LU) administration.
It directed the administration to make adequate security arrangements in the LU. Top officers of the state, including DGP Bua Singh, principal secretary (Home) Satish Agarwal, commissioner RK Mittal, ADG (Law and Order), SP and others were present in the court.
Issuing the above directive on a PIL filed by a city lawyer Jayant Tomar, a division bench comprising Justice Pradeep Kant and Justice AK Singh expressed strong displeasure over the recent happenings in the LU.
“It is unfortunate that the matter, which exclusively lies within the domain of the university and state administration, has been brought to the court as the normal functioning of the university stands disrupted with instances of rowdyism and agitation resulting into closure of the university sine die. The state administration is under legal obligation to see that any untoward incidents do not take place and normalcy is restored,” the bench remarked.
“The action of the vice chancellor for holding students union election in accordance with the directives issued by the apex court cannot be put to question by any person,” the bench remarked.
If certain students stood debarred from contesting the election or otherwise feel discontented with the aforesaid directive, they were free to approach the apex court and set the order modified if they so wish, but they could not certainly be allowed to spoil the whole educational atmosphere of the university and colleges, the bench added.
The bench further observed that contesting union election in the university was apparently not a fundamental or statutory right and hence the students had to abide by the rules which prevailed or were in force for the purpose of election.
The V-C informed the court that the administration had failed to support the LU in implementing the recommendations of the Lyngdoh committee report.
The V-C complained that even though the LU had provided full list of all the student who were involved in criminals activities or were history-sheeters, the administration had done precious little in flushing out such elements from the campus.
They were still occupying the hostels despite specific complaints lodged against them with all the senior officials, including DGP and DM, he said.
The bench observed that the state administration should help the LU in vacating the hostels. Thereafter, allotment of hostel room should be made afresh only on the basis of merit and genuineness of the students to be determined by the LU administration, it said.
The bench also directed the V-C to submit an action taken report (ATR) to the court on December 19 when the case will be heard next.
The bench made it clear that the administration and the LU administration both should have one goal —-to bring back normalcy on the university campus and implementing the order of the SC in letter and spirit.
The DGP told the court that there was no law and order problem inside the campus and that all the demands of the V-C had been met within time. At this, the Court once again expressed its displeasure and asked the DGP if he meant that all the reports appearing in the electronic and print media were wrong.