Back
2009 Supreme(Gau) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Md. Jehar Ali – Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 07.08.2009
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 12 and 226 - Assam Non-Government College Management Rules, 2001 - Rule 1(3) and 18 - Employment and Service matter - Serving as Lecturer - Discharge from service - Order of suspension – Challenge - It is case of petitioner that College being in receipt of ad hoc grants-in-aid from Government it can not be said to be a purely private college and thus matter pertaining to discharge from service of an employee of college can be looked into by writ court exercising its power and jurisdiction - It is case of respondents that college being a purely private one and there being no control of Government in matter of appointment and removal of employees of college writ petition is not maintainable as no direction can be issued to a private body exercising power and jurisdiction - President of Governing Body of college asked petitioner to furnish reply within 15 days from date of issue of letter in respect of charges mentioned in their letter - By said letter, petitioner was also placed under suspension - Making a challenge to the said letter dated placing petitioner under suspension and also asking him to show cause in respect of charges mentioned in letter petitioner filed first writ petition being WP(C) No. which was entertained by order dated – Held, Matter of appointment nor in discharge of petitioner from service there was any requirement to get any approval of governmental authorities - It is Managing Committee which appointed petitioner and also terminated his service - Impugned resolution of managing committee of college is a decision of a private management governed by private law - It can not be said to have involved in public law - It is private body i.e., Managing Committee of college which has terminated services of petitioner - Apex Court noticing that the society in question being not a department of State and also not being a creature of a statute but merely governed by a statute upheld decision of High Court by which it was held that writ petition was not maintainable as no statutory action had been assailed - It was noted by High Court that dispute involved in that proceeding essentially related to claims in realm of private bodies - Same is case in hand - In said case, Apex Court summarised the expression "other authorities" after expressing a note of caution that it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with Government within sweep of expression - A note of caution was expressed that wide enlargement of meaning must be tampered by wise limitation - Petition dismissed.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. The matter relates to the discharge of the petitioner from the services of the particular College of which he was the Principal. In the first writ petition, the challenge is regarding suspension and in the second writ petition, the challenge is regarding the order of discharge from service, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The issue involved is in a very narrow campus, whether the subject matter is amenable to writ jurisdiction. While it is the case of the petitioner that the College being in receipt of ad hoc grants-in-aid from the Government it can not be said to be a purely private college and thus the matter pertaining to discharge from service of an employee of the college can be looked into by the writ court exercising its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the respondents that the college being a purely private one and there being no control of the Government in the matter of appointment and removal of the employees of the college, the writ petition is not maintainable as no direction can be issued to a private body exercising power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The petitioner while was serving as Lecturer of Uttar Barpeta College in the district of Barpeta was appointed as Principal, which was communicated to him by Annexure-A letter dated 26.8.2002, issued under the signature of the Secretary of the College. There is no dispute that his such appointment did not have any approval of any governmental authorities.
4. By annexure-E letter dated 31.8.2008, the President of the Governing Body of the college asked the petitioner to furnish reply within 15 days from the date of issue of the letter in respect of the charges mentioned in their letter. By the said letter, the petitioner was also placed under suspension. Making a challenge to the said letter dated 31.8.2008, placing the petitioner under suspension and also asking him to show cause in respect of the charges mentioned in the letter, the petitioner filed the first writ petition being WP(C) No. 4094/2008, which was entertained by order dated 24.9.2008.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was removed from service by Annexure-H letter dated 17.11.2008, addressed to him by the President of the Governing Body of the College. The grounds assigned for such course of action as indicated in the letter are as follows:
1. Your total failure to comply with the suspended letter dated 31.8.2008.
2. Your failure to comply with the Auditors' committee.
3. Large scale corruption committed from college fund and charges levelled against you.
4. Non-submission of important and relevant documents of the college having with your unauthorised custody.
5. Misleading the Judiciary and police administration using college stamp, pad and seal during suspended period.
6. Violation of all the points of suspended letter dated 31.8.2008.
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition being WP(C) No. 5069/2008.
7. In the writ petitions, the petitioner has placed reliance on the policy decision of the Government to provide financial assistance to the private educational institutions on need basis. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Annexure-B letter dated 4.1.2007 addressed to the Accountant General (A & E), Assam, by the Government of Assam in the Education, Planning (H) Department, conveying the sanction of the amount of Rs. 3.30 crores for giving financial assistance to 120 colleges (Non-Government) at the rate indicated in the letter. The petitioner's college was also included for such financial assistance. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Annexure-C letter dated 4.11.2006 issued by the Gauhati University to all the Principals of the Colleges affiliated to Gauhati University, other than the colleges maintained or aided on recurring basis by
