2009 Supreme(SC) 376

2009(2) Supreme 323
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Annamalai University Rep. by Registrar — Appellant
versus
Secy. to Govt. Infn. & Tourism Dept. & Ors.— Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4173 of 2008
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 4189-4191 of 2008
Decided on : 25-02-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
Provisions of one Act or regulations made thereunder cannot be comprehended to be ultra vires another Act operating in a different field.
Grant of relaxation cannot be presumed by necessary implication.
When mandatory requirements have been violated in terms of the provisions of one Act, an authority under another Act could not have validated the same, that too with a retrospective effect.

Headnote:(a)Constitution of India – Article 258(?) – The UGC Act and the IGNOU Act having been enacted under List I, Entry 66 and List III, Entry 25 respectively, there is no question of repugnancy between the two. (Para 23)

       (b)Higher Education – Open Universities having been established because the formal system of education had not been able to provide an effective means to equalize educational opportunities – Therefore the alternative system envisaged under the Open University Act was not in substitution of the formal system. (Para 23)

       (c)University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – Section 26 (1)(e)(f)(g) – Regulations made under the provision are of wide amplitude – They apply equally to Open Universities as also to formal conventional universities. (Para 23)

       (d)University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – Section 12A(1)(d) and 12A(2)(a) and (c) – The Open University Act having been enacted to achieve a specific object would not mean that activities and functions of the private universities and open universities would be wholly unregulated. (Para 23)

       (e)Constitution of India – Article 254 – Provisions of one Act or regulations made thereunder cannot be comprehended to be ultra vires another Act operating in a different field. (Para 23)

       (f)Constitution of India – Article 254 – If an enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution upon the legislature enacting it, it cannot be held to be invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature. (Para 24)

       (1984) 2 SCR 883; 1994 Suppl (3) SCC 516; (1995) 4 SCC 104; (2003) 9 SCC 564 – Relied upon.

       2008 (13) SCALE 760 – Distinguished.

       (g)Constitution of India – Article 254 – UGC Act, having been enacted in terms of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule would prevail over the Open University Act enacted in terms of Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. (Para 24)

       (1987) 4 SCC 671 – Relied upon.

       (1985) 1 SCC 641; (2006) 3 SCC 434 – Distinguished.

       (h)Judicial Review – An illegality cannot be presumed to be cured merely because no action was taken by the authority on the information furnished – Grant of relaxation cannot be presumed by necessary implication. (Para 28)

       (i)University Grants Commission (the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of the first degree through non-formal/distance education in the faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences) Regulations, 1985 – Regulation 2 being imperative in character, non compliance thereof would entail its consequences. (Para 28)

       (j)Judicial Review – When mandatory requirements have been violated in terms of the provisions of one Act, an authority under another Act could not have validated the same – That too with a retrospective effect. (Para 29)

       Facts of the case :

       1. N. Ramesh (Ramesh) and Sibi Madan Gabriel (Gabriel) were candidates for appointment to the post of Principal in Film and Television Institute of Tamil Nadu.

       2.Gabriel was appointed temporarily as a ‘Lecturer in Acting’ in the Institute on or about 26.5.1982. His services were regularized with retrospective effect from the date of his joining by an order dated 20.2.1992. He was subsequently promoted as Head of Section.

       3.Ramesh was appointed as the Principal by order dated 6.12.2004. Gabriel challenged the said appointment of Ramesh by filing Writ Petition.

       4. The Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition and disposed of the writ appeals pending before it holding that Ramesh was not eligible to be considered for the post of Principal.

       Finding of the Court :

       Ramesh cannot be promoted to the post of Principal of the Institute.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.