Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D.Biswas, J.
Jyotishmoy Bora -Appellant
Versus
Governing Body, Pragjyotish College Guwahati -9 and Ors. -Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 4070 of 2000
Decided On : 12-04-2002
Writ Jurisdiction - Appointment of Teachers in Private College - Article 226, Article 29(2), Article 12 - [Parimal Chakraborty -Vs- State of Meghalaya & Ors., 2000(3) GLT441; Unnikrishnan J.P. & Ors. -Vs-State of A.P. & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 645; K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors. -Vs-Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 295; Miss Ravneet Kaur - Vs- The Christian Medical College, Ludhiana & Anr., AIR 1998 Punjab & Haryana 7] - The court discussed the maintainability of writ jurisdiction against private educational institutions, emphasizing that private colleges receiving aid from the State are amenable to writ jurisdiction for ensuring fairness in the selection process of teachers. The judgment highlighted the applicability of Article 226, Article 29(2), and Article 12 in such cases and established that even private colleges are subject to writ jurisdiction if they are discharging public duties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and respondent No. 3 applied for a non-sanctioned post of Lecturer in Geography in a private college. Despite being placed first in the merit list, the petitioner was deprived of the appointment, and respondent No. 3 was appointed instead.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the private college, receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and being regulated by the Government, cannot act arbitrarily in the selection process of teachers. It emphasized the need for fairness in the selection process, even for a private college, and set aside the appointment of respondent No. 3 in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether a writ would lie against a private college for irregularities in the appointment of teachers against a non-sanctioned post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that private colleges receiving aid from the State are amenable to writ jurisdiction for ensuring fairness in the selection process of teachers, and interference with the selection process is permissible only in the presence of palpable anomalies and irregularities.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the appointment of respondent No. 3 was set aside. The College Authority was directed to appoint the petitioner in the said post of Lecturer if the continuance of the non-sanctioned post is necessary in the interest of students.
The legal document establishes that private colleges receiving aid from the State are subject to writ jurisdiction for ensuring fairness in the appointment of teachers. The court emphasized that such institutions, when discharging public duties or regulated by the government, cannot act arbitrarily in their selection processes (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction of the court to intervene in the appointment process is based on the principle that these institutions, despite being private, are connected to public functions and are therefore amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution (!) (!) (!) .
In the specific case, the court found that the private college, which receives government aid and is regulated by the government, must adhere to principles of fairness in its selection process. The selection was conducted by an expert committee, and the court held that interference is permissible only if there are palpable anomalies or irregularities (!) .
The court further clarified that the appointment of teachers should be based on merit, and when a candidate declared first in merit is deprived of appointment without justifiable reasons, the court has a duty to intervene (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court ruled that the appointment of the respondent was unlawful and ordered the college to appoint the petitioner, who was found to be the most meritorious candidate. The ruling underscores that even private institutions receiving aid and regulated by the state are bound to follow principles of fairness and transparency in their appointment procedures (!) (!) (!) .
The decision also highlights that the court's jurisdiction is rooted in ensuring public interest and fairness, especially when the institution discharges functions with public significance, such as the appointment of teachers in an educational setting (!) (!) (!) .
The question to be answered in this writ petition is whether a writ would lie against a private college for irregularities m the appointment of teachers against non-sanctioned post.
2.1 have heard Mrs. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned senior counsel for respondents No.l and 2, Mr. D.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.
3. In pursuance of an advertisement published by the respondent College, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 along with others applied for the non-sanctioned post of Lecturer in Geography with specialisation in Cartography in Master Degree level. Both the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 3 have had the requisite qualifications. The Selection Committee interviewed the candidates on 28.2.2002 and, thereafter, prepared a list on merit placing the writ petitioner as the first nominee. Despite that, to the deprivation of the writ petitioner, respondent No. 3, the third nominee was appointed by the College Authority.
4. Amenability of the private college to the writ jurisdiction of the Court has been dealt with by this Court in Parimal Chakraborty -Vs- State of Meghalaya & Ors., [2000(3) GLT441]. In paragraph 12, this court held as follows :
"12. The teachers of educational institutions established under statutory provisions or under the control of State are entitled to vindicate their grievances availing remedies under the Article 226 ; therefore, there must exist justifiable reasons for refusal of the same to the teachers of private institutions. Non-availability of any legislative shield cannot be criterion for such refusal. It is for this reason the Supreme Court in K. Krishnamacharyulu and others (supra) while giving effect to an executive order held that the writ is maintainable. This decision of the Supreme Court has to be read in a larger amplitude."
5. Thereafter, similar question was also raised in Dipankar Roy - Vs- Principal & Secretary, Public College of Commerce, Dimapur & Ors. [2001(2) GLT 361J. Relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Unnikrishnan J.P. & Ors. -Vs-State ofA.P. & Ors., reported in (1993) 1 SCC 645 and in K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors. -Vs-Sri VenkateswaraHindu College of Engineering & Anr., reported in AIR 1998 SC 295, the learned Single Judge reiterated the same view with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition.
6. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that in an appropriate case the Court will not hesitate to exercise the discretionary powers under Article 226 to ensure fairness in the affairs of a private college. The law is settled by the Supreme Court that High Courts can issue writs, orders or directions even to any person or authority discharging public duty for enforcement of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. In Miss Ravneet Kaur - Vs- The Christian Medical College, Ludhiana & Anr., reported in AIR 1998 Punjab & Haryana 7, it has been held as follows :
"38. A private education institution receiving aid from State funds may not be a 'State' as defined in Art. 12. Yet, Article 29(2) confers a fundamental right on all citizens not to be discriminated against in the matter of admission to such an institution on grounds only of religion, caste, language or any of them. If a citizen is denied admission by such an institution on any of the grounds specified in Art. 29(2), can it be said that the aggrieved person cannot seek a writ for the enforcement of his rights either under Art. 32 or 226 on the ground that it happens to be a private educational institution ? Certainly not.
39. In view of these conclusions, the view taken by the Full Bench in Gurpreet Singh's case (AIR 1983 Punj. & Har 70) (supra) wherein it was held that "against these institutions, no general fundamental right of equality of admission on merits can even be invoked....." is no longer good law. A citizen can invoke the right to equality in the matter of admis
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
