Back
1976 Supreme(AP) 196
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO, MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Osmania College, Kurnool - Appellant
Versus
D.V.Subba Sastry - Respondent
Decided On : 10-15-76
A writ petition is maintainable against a minority institution which is a public body and not a private body.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - PUBLIC BODY - MASTER AND SERVANT RELATIONSHIP - ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACT - MANDAMUS - UNIVERSITY SYNDICATE DECISION - VALIDITY - MINORITY INSTITUTION - ARTICLE 30(1) - SECTIONS 3, 5 AND 12 OF ANDHRA PRADESH RECOGNISED PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (CONTROL) ACT, 1975 - VALIDITY - WRIT JURISDICTION - EXERCISE OF DISCRETION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant college, Osmania College, Kurnool, is a minority institution affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati. Respondents 1 and 2 were lecturers in the Telugu department of the college. The college management passed an order retrenching them on the ground of fall in workload. The respondents challenged the retrenchment and invoked the provisions of the contract of service which provided for an appeal to the Syndicate. The University Syndicate allowed the appeals of the respondents and directed the college to continue them in service. The college management, however, did not comply with the Syndicate's decision and continued to resist the respondents' claim for reinstatement. The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a direction to the college to implement the Syndicate's decision and to allow them to function as lecturers in the Telugu department. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the college to implement the Syndicate's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the writ petition was maintainable as the college was a public body and not a private body. The Court also held that the enforcement of the Syndicate's decision did not amount to enforcing a master and servant relationship, but was a decision of the University Syndicate rendered in an appeal preferred by the respondents. The Court further held that the Syndicate's decision came within the ambit of section 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institutions (Control) Act, 1975, and was therefore a statutory order. The Court also held that sections 3, 5 and 12 of the Act were not violative of the rights of the minority institutions enshrined in Article 30(1) of the Constitution, as they were regulatory in nature and intended to maintain a uniform level and standard of teaching and education in all affiliated colleges.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the college, which was a minority institution? 2. Whether the enforcement of the Syndicate's decision amounted to enforcing a master and servant relationship? 3. Whether the Syndicate's decision came within the ambit of section 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institutions (Control) Act, 1975? 4. Whether sections 3, 5 and 12 of the Act were violative of the rights of the minority institutions enshrined in Article 30(1) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The college was a public body and not a private body, as it was affiliated to a university, recognised by the government, and received full teaching grants. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable. 2. The enforcement of the Syndicate's decision did not amount to enforcing a master and servant relationship, as it was a decision of the University Syndicate rendered in an appeal preferred by the respondents. 3. The Syndicate's decision came within the ambit of section 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institutions (Control) Act, 1975, and was therefore a statutory order. 4. Sections 3, 5 and 12 of the Act were not violative of the rights of the minority institutions enshrined in Article 30(1) of the Constitution, as they were regulatory in nature and intended to maintain a uniform level and standard of teaching and education in all affiliated colleges.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE first and the principal point that was debated before us in writ Appeal is about the correctness of harijander Singh v. Rakatiya Medical College. Sri Shiv Shanker appearing for the appellant has mounted a severe criticism on the correctness of the view taken by the Full Bench in that case and said that in any event it has ceased to be good law in view of what the Supreme Court decided in later cases. Though other questions did arise, this point occupied substantial portion of the arguments.
( 2 ) THIS is how the matter arose. The appellant is the Osmania College, Kurnool, represented by its Correspondent. It is affiliated to Sri Venkateswara University, tirupati, which is the 4th respondent. There is no dispute that it is an institution of a minority community which gets the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution. It is recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and has been receiving full teaching grant. Respondents 1 and 2 are lecturers in the Telugu department of the college. The first had been in service for nine years and the second for eight years before the filing of the writ petition. Saying that there would be fall in the work load in the following academic year, the Managing Committee of the appellant college passed an order on 16th of March, 1968 retrenching respondents 1 and 2 from service. This retrenchment was questioned by the respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 2801 of 1968 in this Court. Simultaneously they invoked the provisions of clause 10 of the contract of service which they entered into with the college management and which provided for an appeal to the Syndicate. As a condition of affiliation, the University laid down certain conditions of service for teachers serving in the affiliated colleges. While admitting the writ petition this court granted an interim direction not to retrench respondents 1 and 2. It was also later directed that the salaries of respondents 1 and 2 should be paid within 15 days. Gopala Rao Ekbote, J. (as he then was), granted a direction, while finally disposing of the writ petition on 13th April, 1970 that the respondents 1 and 2 should be continued in service until the Syndicate disposed of the appeals preferred by them. There was no appeal against that decision as a consequence of which Justice Ekbote s decision became final. The Syndicate of the University thereafter allowed the appeals of the respondents 1 and 2 and directed the appellant to continue them in service.
( 3 ) THE college committee did not strp here. Saying that the evening session of the college was going to be closed, it passed a resolution on 28th April, 1970 to the effect that the services of the respondents 1 and 2 would not be required and would therefore be terminated. This was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 in W. P. No. 3499 of 1970 who also preferred appeals to the Syndicate of the University. Pending the writ petition they were continued in service by an order rf this Court. This was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the respondents 1 and 2 were appointed to the evening college and as it was going to be closed they could not seek continuance in service. Madhava Reddy, j. , by his decision dated 25th September, 1970 finally disposed of the writ petition holding that the appointment of respondents 1 and 2 was not for the evening sessicn and even if the evening college or session was closed down, the services of respondents 1 and 2 could not be terminated in the circumstances of the case. As was done on the previous occasion, this time also a directicn was given that the respondents 1 and 2 should be continued in service until the Syndicate disposed of the appeals which were preferred before it by the respondents 1 and 2. This time an appeal was preferred in W. A. No. 269 of 1971 by the appellant against the decision of madhava Reddy, J. , it was, however, dismissed by a Division Bench on 25th October, 1971. In the meanwhil,, the Syndicate of the Uni
