2012 (8) TMI 1226 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Vice Chancellor's power to withdraw approval of the petitioner's appointment.
2. Allegations of malafides and bias by the Vice Chancellor.
3. Applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
4. Impact of the petitioner's criminal conviction on his appointment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the Vice Chancellor's power to withdraw approval of the petitioner's appointment.
The petitioner challenged the Vice Chancellor's order dated 24th February 2011, cancelling his appointment as a lecturer. The court noted that the Vice Chancellor has the power to approve and withdraw appointments under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, and related statutes. The Vice Chancellor's role includes maintaining academic standards and discipline, implying the authority to withdraw approval if necessary. The court emphasized that the Vice Chancellor's powers are extensive and include ensuring compliance with the Act, Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations. The court concluded that the Vice Chancellor had the authority to withdraw the petitioner's approval, especially given the petitioner's criminal conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude.

Issue 2: Allegations of malafides and bias by the Vice Chancellor.
The petitioner alleged that the Vice Chancellor acted with malafides and bias, claiming the impugned order was backdated in retaliation for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the petitioner. The court found these allegations vague and unsubstantiated. The court noted that the show cause notice was issued in March 2008, long before the current Vice Chancellor assumed office. The court also found no evidence linking the PIL to the timing of the impugned order, concluding that the Vice Chancellor acted within his authority and without malice.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
The petitioner argued that once approval was granted, it could not be withdrawn, invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Vice Chancellor's power to grant approval inherently includes the power to withdraw it. The court cited Supreme Court rulings affirming that statutory powers include all necessary means to make them effective. The court held that the Vice Chancellor's authority to withdraw approval was consistent with maintaining academic standards and discipline.

Issue 4: Impact of the petitioner's criminal conviction on his appointment.
The petitioner had been convicted of offenses involving moral turpitude, which led to the withdrawal of his approval as a lecturer. The court noted that the petitioner's conviction, even though partially set aside, still involved moral turpitude under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized that a teacher's character is crucial for maintaining academic integrity and that allowing a convicted individual to continue as a lecturer would undermine the university's standards. The court upheld the Vice Chancellor's decision to withdraw the petitioner's approval based on his criminal conviction.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Vice Chancellor's authority to withdraw approval of the petitioner's appointment due to his criminal conviction. The court found no evidence of malafides or bias and confirmed the applicability of the Vice Chancellor's powers under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The petitioner's arguments based on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, were also rejected.