Back
1999 Supreme(AP) 1073
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.A.SWAMY
V.N.Dass - Appellant
Versus
Vice-Chancellor, Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupathi - Respondent
Decided On : 11-23-99
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 , 14 , 16 and 21 - Delhi Municipal Corporation act, 1957 – Section 343 and Section 344 - U. P. State Universities act – Section 68 - Sri Padmavathi mahila Viswa-Vidyalaya Act, 1983 - Section 10 - Section 12 - Professor in English in first respondent-University filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of mandamus duly declaring action of vice-Chancellor in obtaining her resignation from post of Registrar of respondent-University forcibly by threatening and pressurising her and accepting same hastily trying to justify her action by stating that resignation of petitioner was accepted by her in exercise of power conferred when petitioner tried to withdraw her resignation, after accepting resignation as Registrar in trying to post petitioner as Professor in English by taking away headship of department as illegal, void ab initio, without jurisdiction, perverse, abuse of power, colourable exercise of power, malicious and violative and vice-Chancellor in her personal capacity was also impleaded as second respondent and consequently to direct respondent-University to continue petitioner as registrar of University till she completes tenure with all consequential benefits and to pass such other orders - In affidavit filed in support of writ petition petitioner stated that after of Central university resigned for post and left university she was initially appointed as in-charge Registrar and thereafter Executive Council at its meeting held resolved to appoint petitioner as regular Registrar for a period of one year from date of resolution in exercise of its powers - Pursuance to said resolution, 1st respondent issued proceedings appointing petitioner as regular – Held , IN light of foregoing discussion on various issues framed for consideration, petitioner cannot be unsuited on ground of existence of an alternative remedy - IN result, all issues framed for consideration were answered in favour of petitioner and against Respondents and a Writ of Mandamus shall issue setting aside orders of Respondent vice-Chancellor, accepting resignation of petitioner as Registrar of University and also resolution withdrawing financial powers of officers of University and consequently a direction is given to respondents to continue petitioner as Registrar till completion of tenure for which she was appointed after excluding period under which she was not allowed to function as registrar of University with full financial powers as per Circular pursuant to resolution of board of Management - In light of facts of this case, petitioner shall be entitled for costs in this writ petition - Advocates fee Rs - 5,000/- and same shall be payable by respondent in her personal capacity - This leaves one more issue to be answered by this Court, whether fees paid to senior Counsel has to be paid by University respondent personally - Admittedly, 1st respondent is having its own Counsel and she shall be paid her fees as per terms of her appointment - In this case 2nd respondent engaged services of a senior counsel under an impression that presence of senior Counsel will tilt result in her favour - Now, as University lost its case, 2nd respondent being very conscious person and in her own language that Vice-Chancellorship is not a privilege but a trust and an obligation to be answerable to Government and public, and as legal fee paid to senior Counsel is likely to be much more than that of alleged amount squandered away by petitioner, which now 2nd respondent is trying to safeguard, she shall pay fees to senior Counsel engaged by her to uphold her ego, from out of her pocket without causing financial burden to University whose annual budget is very less than budget of other universities in her own terms and see that developmental activities of university are not hampered – Appeal Allowed
( 1 ) SMT. V. N. Das, Professor in English in the first respondent-University filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of mandamus duly declaring the action of the vice-Chancellor in obtaining her resignation from the post of Registrar of the respondent-University forcibly by threatening and pressurising her and accepting the same hastily, (2) trying to justify her action by stating that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by her in exercise of the power conferred on her under Section 10 (3) of Sri Padmavathi mahila Viswa-Vidyalaya Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred as the Act) when the petitioner tried to withdraw her resignation, (3) after accepting the resignation as Registrar in trying to post the petitioner as Professor in English by taking away headship of the department as illegal, void ab initio, without jurisdiction, perverse, abuse of power, colourable exercise of power, malicious and violative of articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of india by making the Vice-Chancellor and registrar as respondents 1 and 3 and the vice-Chancellor in her personal capacity was also impleaded as second respondent and consequently to direct the respondent-University to continue the petitioner as registrar of the University till she completes the tenure with all consequential benefits and to pass such other orders.
( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner stated that after one Dr. Rambrahmam of Central university resigned for the post and left the university she was initially appointed as in-charge Registrar on 16-11-1998 and thereafter the Executive Council at its meeting held on 6-3-1999 resolved to appoint the petitioner as regular Registrar for a period of one year from the date of resolution in exercise of its powers under section 12 (1) of the Act. Pursuance to the said resolution, the 1st respondent issued proceedings No. 949/estt/c/98 dated 23-3-1999 appointing the petitioner as regular Registrar till 6-3-2000.
( 3 ) FROM the material papers it is seen that the petitioner while working as professor in English seemed to have applied for allotment of Professors quarter and Quarter No. 1 was allotted to her on 20-2-1999 and that quarter was unoccupied for over 11/2 years. Thereafter, after obtaining oral orders of the second respondent, the petitioner seemed to have got the building repaired at an estimated expenditure of Rs. 16,000/- through a local contractor. For that the second respondent has taken an objection stating that the material used for repair were drawn from the University and the procedure followed by the petitioner in entrusting the work to the contractor is illegal and in fact she seemed to have appointed a Committee comprising of three Professors as an enquiry Committee to probe into (he matter and submit their report. At the same time, the car that is being used by the registrar was also in a bad condition. The engineer of the Respondent-University having estimated the works to be attended to the car at Rs. 43,000/-, called for quotations and the work was entrusted to the lowest tenderer at the cost of rs. 58,000/ -. It is also the case of the petitioner that the work order was sent by the Vice-Chancellor herself and after the repairs were over to the car and as the same was looking better than the car of the Vice chancellor, the second respondent felt envious and not only directed to remove the new Dash-Board in the car having provisions like air-conditioning and stereo-system, but also tore the cheque that has been prepared by the Accounts Officer. On the basis of these two incidents, the second respondent started harassing the petitioner and directed her to resign the post of registrar, otherwise she will be compelled to remove the petitioner from service even as Professor as her probation was not declared in that category. On 23-7-1999 itself the petitioner complained to the commissioner of Collegiate Education on the highhanded act
