9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1403 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - Whether the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.10.2004 and seeking other reliefs as quoted above is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the fourth respondent being minority private institution affiliated to the University and receiving aid from the Government? - Whether Exhibit P14 order dated 12.10.2004 is an order imposing punishment within the ambit of Section 63 of the Act, 1985 and has the petitioner statutory remedy to file appeal before the University Tribunal under section 63(6) of the Act, 1985? - Whether the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal can be treated to be an appointment on deputation for a period of five years terminable at the instance of the management of the fourth respondent College? - Whether the termination of the petitioner from the post of Principal in the manner as carried out by the fourth respondent is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1985 and the Statutes framed thereunder? HELD THAT - It is clear that the Writ Petition has been filed challenging violation of statutory provisions by the management. The petitioner contends that the action of the management terminating the service of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1985 as well as Chapter XLV of the M.G. University Statutes, 1997 - There is no dispute that salary of teachers and employees is being paid by the State. The fourth respondent College is undoubtedly a private body, but it is obliged to carry on its function as per the statutory obligations imposed by the Act, 1985 and the Statutes framed thereunder - The service conditions of a Principal and teachers of an affiliated College are governed by the statutory provisions. The Writ Petition, at the instance of such teacher or Principal, is thus, clearly maintainable. The petitioner's appointment not being on deputation, treatment of the appointment of the petitioner as deputation and termination of the deputation is wholly without jurisdiction and beyond the power of the management. The management could have taken disciplinary action in accordance with Section 63 of the Act, 1985 and could not in any other manner terminate the employment of the petitioner - The petitioner, who was substantively appointed by direct recruitment after following due procedure in the Act and Rules, has been illegally and arbitrarily treated to be on deputation by the management and the order dated 12.10.2004, thus, is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. The interest of justice will be served in directing payment of a lump sum amount to the petitioner by the management of the fourth respondent College, instead of directing reinstatement to the post of Principal - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a minority private institution. 2. Whether the order dated 12.10.2004 is an order imposing punishment within the ambit of Section 63 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985. 3. Whether the appointment of the petitioner as Principal can be treated as an appointment on deputation for a period of five years. 4. Whether the termination of the petitioner from the post of Principal was contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1985 and the Statutes framed thereunder. 5. Reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled. Detailed Analysis: Issue No. (I) - Maintainability The court examined whether a Writ Petition is maintainable against a minority institution affiliated to the University and receiving government aid. The court referred to the Full Bench judgment in Madhavan Pillai v. Balan and others and the Supreme Court judgments in Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani and Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab. The court held that a Writ Petition is maintainable if there is a violation of statutory obligations. The court concluded that the fourth respondent College is obliged to carry out its functions as per statutory obligations imposed by the Act, 1985 and the Statutes framed thereunder, thus making the Writ Petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Issue Nos. (II), (III), and (IV) - Nature of Appointment and Termination The court considered the nature of the petitioner's appointment and the validity of the termination order dated 12.10.2004. The petitioner was appointed as Principal through direct recruitment after following due procedure, not on deputation. The court noted that the appointment was approved by the University without any limitation of tenure. The court found that the termination order treated the petitioner's appointment as deputation, which was incorrect and beyond the jurisdiction of the management. The management could have taken disciplinary action in accordance with Section 63 of the Act, 1985 but not in the manner it did. The court held the order dated 12.10.2004 as unsustainable and set it aside. Issue No. (V) - Reliefs The court addressed the reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled. Considering the petitioner's upcoming superannuation and the fact that he was out of employment for a substantial period, the court decided against reinstatement. Instead, the court directed the fourth respondent to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,00,000 to the petitioner in lieu of salary which he could have received had he not been terminated from service. This payment was to be made within three months from the date of the judgment. Conclusion: The court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the termination order dated 12.10.2004, and directed the fourth respondent to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,00,000 to the petitioner. The court emphasized the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 due to the statutory obligations imposed on the minority institution.
|
