Committee Of Management & Anr vs Vice Chancellor & Ors

2. Appellants run a Muslim Minority Post Graduate College, commonly known as Mumtaz Post Graduate College (for short, `the college') at Lucknow. It is affiliated with the University of Lucknow (for short, `the University'). Third respondent, viz., Dr. Mukhtar Nabi Khan was appointed as Principal of the said college. On an allegation that a prima facie case had 2 been made out against the said respondent of having committed various acts of misconduct, a preliminary enquiry was held pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee in a meeting held on 02nd May 2003. For the said purpose a Committee of three senior members was constituted. The said Committee submitted its report on or about 30th May 2003.

5. Upon recording evidence of some witnesses, the Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 03rd March 2004 opining that the respondent no.3 was prima facie guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, causing wrongful gain to himself and causing wrongful loss to the institution. Relevant portion of the report of the Enquiry Committee is quoted heretobelow :

7. By a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the appellant- institution in a meeting held on 05th June 2004, a decision was taken to issue a second show cause notice to respondent no.3 pursuant whereto a notice was issued to him on 15th June 2004. He submitted his reply on 23rd June 2004, inter alia, contending that he had not got an opportunity of cross- examining the witnesses. A fresh opportunity was, therefore, granted to him. The Enquiry Officer was also changed. A senior advocate of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Respondent no.3, however, made allegations of bias against him 4 whereupon another Enquiry Officer, viz., Aftab Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate was appointed. The said Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20th November 2005.

8. Respondent no.1, however, passed an order on 31st December 2005 staying the operation of the order of suspension. On or about 04th February 2006, the Managing Committee, upon hearing the respondent no.3 in person, passed a resolution that he be removed from service. A report thereabout, as envisaged under the proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the U.P. Universities Act, 1973 (for short, `the Act'), was sent to the 1st respondent. By reason of an order dated 07th/12th July 2006, the Vice-chancellor refused to grant approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee in regard to the removal of respondent no.3 stating :

9. Challenging the legality and/or validity of the said order, the appellants filed writ petition before the High Court which, by reason of the impugned order, has been dismissed, stating :

14. The U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 was enacted with a view to toning up the academic and financial administration of higher education in State of U.P. A comprehensive Bill applicable to all the State Universities (except the Roorkee University and Govind Ballabh Pant Agricultural University), was prepared in the light of the recommendations made by various Commissions and Committees appointed by the Government of India and the State Government and also the views of the Vice-Chancellors and other educationists.

(3) The resolution shall forthwith be communicated to the teacher concerned and also be reported to the Vice-Chancellor for approval and shall not be operative unless so approved by the Vice-Chancellor.

[Emphasis supplied]

There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks on administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound, so as to serve the academic needs of the institution. Regulations made by the State concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying down eligibility criteria and qualifications for appointment, as also conditions of service of employees (both teaching and non-teaching), regulations to prevent exploitation or oppression of employees, and regulations prescribing syllabus and curriculum of study fall under this category. Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1).

(i) .........

(ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff,

(iii) .........

(iv) ... ... ..."

25. Keeping in view the legal questions arising in the matter, we are of the opinion that it was not a fit case where the High Court should have 19 refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the writ application.

26. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The High Court is requested to consider the matter on merits. No costs.

December 16, 2008