Management Committee... v. Vice Chancellor, Bun..., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Special Leave Petition No. 3090 of 1989, decided on July 31, 1990

Disposition

dismissed

Judges

Justice S. Ranganathan
Justice M. Fathima Beevi
Justice J.S. Verma

Acts

Section 68 of the U.P State University Act
Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Committee of Management of Atarra Post Graduate College terminated the probation of Dr. Gaur, who had been appointed Principal on 1 November 1984 and whose probation was extended until 31 October 1986. The termination was said to rely on two committee resolutions dated 11 October 1986 and 20 October 1986 and received approval from the University’s Vice-Chancellor on 7 December 1986.

Dr. Gaur challenged that approval by filing a writ petition, which the Allahabad High Court dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy lay with the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State University Act. Following representations from the Teachers’ Association and Dr. Gaur, the Vice-Chancellor reviewed and rescinded his earlier approval on 29 June 1987.

The Committee of Management then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12682 of 1987. On 30 September 1988 the High Court held that while the Vice-Chancellor lacked a formal power of review, he could investigate whether the initial approval had been obtained by misrepresentation. The Committee of Management sought special leave from the Supreme Court against that order.

During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition (SLP), the Supreme Court allowed the Vice-Chancellor to complete the directed inquiry but prohibited implementation of any decision without further orders. After inquiry, the Vice-Chancellor issued an order on 9 February 1990 finding that the Management’s claim of an 11 October 1986 meeting was false and setting aside the earlier approval of termination.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Vice-Chancellor possessed authority to review and rescind his earlier approval of the Management’s termination order.
Whether the Supreme Court should examine the factual correctness of the Vice-Chancellor’s findings or require exhaustion of the statutory remedy before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State University Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner – Committee of Management

The Vice-Chancellor failed to appreciate the evidence placed before him during the inquiry.
The conclusions reached on 9 February 1990 were perverse and ignored substantial testimony supporting the occurrence of the committee meetings.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court declined to re-appraise the factual findings of the Vice-Chancellor, noting that Section 68 of the U.P. State University Act furnishes an adequate statutory remedy: any aggrieved party may refer the dispute to the Chancellor, who has broad power to determine whether decisions of University authorities conform to the Act, Statutes and Ordinances.

Because the Vice-Chancellor’s 9 February 1990 order was issued pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, there was initial uncertainty whether it constituted an “order” or merely a “report.” Acknowledging this confusion, the Court exercised equitable discretion to condone the delay and allow the Management to file a reference to the Chancellor within fifteen days. The Court further expressed its expectation that the Chancellor would dispose of the matter within two months, given the protracted history of the dispute.

Pending the Chancellor’s decision, the Court directed maintenance of the status quo with respect to Dr. Gaur. The Supreme Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the Vice-Chancellor’s findings.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Committee of Management to invoke the Chancellor’s jurisdiction under Section 68 within fifteen days; delay for that purpose is condoned. The status quo concerning Dr. Gaur shall continue until the Chancellor’s final decision. Should no reference be filed within the prescribed period, the SLP will stand dismissed automatically. The decision imposes no new legal precedent but reinforces the principle that statutory internal remedies must be pursued before seeking further judicial intervention.

Show full summary ...

Management Committee, Atarra Post Graduate College v. Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi And Another

Order

1. This is a special leave petition preferred by the Committee of Management of the Atarra Post Graduate College from an order of the High Court of Allahabad dated September 30, 1988 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 12682 of 1987.

2. The facts briefly were that the Committee of Management had terminated the probation of one Dr Gaur who had joined as Principal on November 1, 1984 and whose probation has been extended till October 31, 1986. This was stated to be in pursuance of resolutions passed by the Committee on October 11, 1986 and, again, October 20, 1986 and after notice to Dr Gaur. This order of the Committee of Management was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University on December 7, 1986. A writ petition was filed against this order of the Vice Chancellor by Dr Gaur but this was dismissed by the High Court on the short ground that he had an alternative remedy before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P State University Act.

3. Later on, however, on a representation made by the Teachers' Association and also by Dr Gaur, the Vice Chancellor purported to review his earlier order and passed an order dated June 29, 1987 by which he rescinded the approval granted to the termination of the services of Dr Gaur on December 7, 1986.

4. The Committee of Management filed a writ petition before the High Court which was disposed of by the order dated September 30, 1988 referred to above. The High Court was of the view that the Vice Chancellor did not have the power of review but, however, held that, in the circumstances, it was open to him to consider whether there had been any misrepresentation in the statements made before him on the basis of which he had taken the decision dated December 7, 1986. It is against this order of the High Court that this special leave petition has been preferred by the Committee of Management.

5. During the pendency of this SLP, this Court passed an interim order by which they permitted the Vice Chancellor to proceed with the enquiry directed by the order of the High Court dated September 30, 1988 subject to the condition that any decision taken by the Vice Chancellor should not be enforced and implemented until further orders of this Court. This Court also directed that the Vice Chancellor should submit his report to this Court as soon as enquiry is over. The Vice Chancellor has accordingly gone ahead with the enquiry and he has passed an order dated February 9, 1990 holding that the approval dated December 7, 1986 given by the Vice Chancellor was based on an untrue statement of facts given by the Management, that no meeting of October 11, 1986 had been held as stated by it and that the said approval dated December 7, 1986 terminating the service of Dr Gaur should be quashed and set aside.

6. Mr Poti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee of Management, submits that the Vice Chancellor has not properly appreciated the circumstances of the case. He also submitted that the conclusions of the Vice Chancellor are totally perverse and ignores the mass of evidence of the Committee of Management as well as several witnesses before the Vice Chancellor regarding the conduct of both the meetings. In our opinion it is not for this Court to appraise the factual circumstances and come to a conclusion whether the order of the Vice Chancellor is correct or not, particularly when it is open to the aggrieved party, under Section 68 of the U.P State University Act, to have a reference made to the Chancellor of the University who has ample powers to decide whether any decision taken by any authority or officer is in conformity with the statutes and ordinances of the University. In view of this provision it is open to the Committee of Management to make a reference to the Chancellor to decide the issue regarding the validity of the termination of the services of Dr Gaur and of the order of the Vice Chancellor. We, therefore, express no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the order-cum-report dated February 9, 1990 of the Vice Chancellor. We leave it open to the Committee of Management to take a reference to the Chancellor regarding the correctness of this order.

7. Normally a reference under Section 68 of the U.P State University Act is to be made within three months of the order by the aggrieved person. But, in this case, though the Vice Chancellor has passed what purported to be an “order”, there was some misapprehension as to whether it was an order or only a report pursuant to the interim order of this Court. In view of this the Committee of Management has not so far filed any reference to the Chancellor. We are of the opinion that, in the circumstances, the delay in seeking a reference should be condoned and that the Chancellor may entertain a reference from the Committee of Management if such reference is preferred within a period of 15 days from today. Having regard to the fact that this matter has been pending for a very long time, we hope that the Chancellor will be able to dispose of the reference within two months from today.

8. We also direct that the status quo as on date regarding the respondent may be continued till the Chancellor finally disposes of the reference before him. We may make it clear that if no reference is asked for within 15 days from today, this special leave petition will be treated as dismissed. With these observations the SLP is disposed of.

Management Committee... v. Vice Chancellor, Bun...