IMPORTANT POINT
Sections 60(7) and 61 of the Kerala University Act, 1974, giving powers to the Appellate Tribunal that are uncanalised and unguided are held inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed to religious & linguistic minorities by Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-St. Joseph s Training College for Women, Ernakulam is an educational institution established by the religious congregation of Mother of Carmel belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. It is an educational institution established and administered by a religious minority and hence entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The college was affiliated to the University of Kerala.

2. From the inception of the college in 1957 the appellant-Lilly Kurian was the Principal of the college. It is her case that she was persuaded by the management to accept the Principalship of the college when it was started and she was persuaded to resign a Class I Gazetted Officer s post in Government service for this purpose. The appellant also contends that the management had hoped that she would become a nun. She, however, refused to become a nun and got married, after which the relations between her and the management deteriorated. When one of the nuns belonging to the religious order became partially qualified for the Principal s post, attempts were made by the management to remove the appellant in order to make a qualified nun Principal of the College.

3. On account of an incident which took place in the college of 30th of October, 1969 between the appellant who was the Principal and a Lecturer Rajaretnam who was on deputation to the college, complaints were made by the appellant as well as by Rajaretnam to the management Board of the college. The Management Board thereupon decided to take disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. According to the management, letters dated 11th November, 1969, 12th November, 1969 and 13th of November, 1969 were sent to the appellant under certificate of posting, giving her a charge-sheet and calling her for a disciplinary enquiry to be held on 16th of November, 1969. The appellant contends that she was on leave from 14.11.1969 to 17.11.1969 and was out of station. She received the letter of 13th of November, 1969 fixing the date of enquiry as 16th November, 1969 only on 17th of November, 1969. In the meanwhile, the enquiry was held ex-parte against the appellant on 16.11.1969. It concluded on 19.11.1969. On 13.12.1969 a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant asking her to show-cause why penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon her.

Thereupon the appellant on 18th of December, 1969 filed a suit being O.S. 819/69 before the Munsiff s Court challenging the enquiry proceedings and asking for an injunction to restrain the management from implementing its decision. We are not referring in detail to these and various subsequent proceedings and suits filed by the management but only to certain relevant dates.

On 2nd of January, 1970 an order was passed by the management dismissing the appellant from service. The appellant filed an appeal from the order of dismissal to the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University under Ordinance 33(4) Chapter LVII of the Ordinances framed by the Syndicate of the Kerala University. The Vice-Chancellor after staying the order of dismissal by an interim order, ultimately allowed her appeal on 19.10.1970.

In the meanwhile, in April 1970 a fresh disciplinary enquiry was instituted against the appellant by the Managing Board of the College on the charge of insubordination in view of her having sent two communications to the Education Department to terminate the deputation of Rajaretnam. As a result, on 9th of December, 1969 deputation of Rajaretnam was terminated by the Education Department. The appellant was placed under suspension on 10th of April, 1970 in the second enquiry and sister Lewina was appointed a substitute principal. The appellant filed an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor under the above Ordinance. Both these appeals were heard together by the Vice-Chancellor who allowed both these appeals by the above order of 9.10.1970. The Vice-Chancellor after going in detail into the facts