2001 Supreme(Guj) 254

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.C.PATEL, RAVI R.TRIPATHI
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT - Appellant
Versus
UKAKANT SHRIVASTVA - Respondent
L.P.A. 451 of 1993
Decided On : 04/20/2001

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Articles 226, 12, 45, 226 (1) - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Public Trust Act - University Act - Section 51, 51. A - Bank Act, section 30, 9 - Shops and Establishment Act - Section 66 - Industrial Disputes - Sections 25. F, 25 FFA, 25. N and 25. 0 - University Act - Section 37, 35,38 and 38aa - Appeal is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special - Petitioner filed the aforesaid petition under Art. of the Constitution of India against the order of termination of his services - Respondent No. 1 was Professor in the Indian Institute of Management - By the letter dated vide Annexure : A to the petition his services were terminated - Appellant Institute was of the view that it is not in the interest of the Institute to continue the respondent No. 1 in services and therefore, his services were terminated with immediate effect - Along with the letter a sum of towards three months salary by bankers pay order was forwarded giving particulars - Respondent No. 1 was requested to settle the accounts with Finance and Accounts office in the course of time - Respondent No. 1 was requested to surrender the library books and other articles belonging to the Institute - Respondent No. 1 was requested to give vacant possession of the respondent No. 1 s faculty house to the Housekeeping Officer on or before - registered under the Societies Registration Act and is also registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act - There is Board of Governors looking after the property and affairs of the Institute - It is contended that the Institute was established in the year by the Government of India and Government - It is contended in the petition that the Indian Industry also participated in the establishment of the Institute - Such Institutes are also at Calcutta and Bangalore - Held, Court in the case of and we are not in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge that because the Institute is in the field of management education and research it could be a State within meaning of Article of the Constitution of India - One should not lose sight of the fact that in the modern concept of welfare State, independent institution corporation and agency are generally subject to the State control - State control does not render such bodies as State under Article - In the case Apex Court has pointed out after considering the various decisions rendered earlier in paragraph that it is impossible to hold that a private educational Institute either by recognition or by affiliation to the University could ever be called a instrumentality of the State - We have considered the case wherein the functions of the NCERT were examined and the Court pointed out that it cannot be said to be a state - Division Bench of this Court, in the case of and another Division Bench in the case considered earlier decisions and applying the tests laid down in the - Court pointed out that the decision of nowhere lays down that school run by a public trust is State or other authority or instrumentality of State as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution - Opinion it is not correct to say that IIMA is performing public function in the field of management education training and research and is also involved in like such activities and therefore it is a State within the meaning of Article of the Constitution of India - We would like to clarify here that if IIMA acts in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in connection with admission of students in the Institute - Court may invoke its jurisdiction under Article and grant relief to the students, not because it is a State under Article but because granting admission to students involve public duty and calls for and violation thereof would tantamount to breach of Article 14 of Constitution of India - Court pointed out this distinction in paragraph and has held that what is discharged by an educational institution is a public duty that requires to act fairly and in such a case it will be subject to Article - In our opinion therefore the decision - Appeal is required to be allowed and is hereby allowed.