Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
Dibakar Chakraborty and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
National Institute of Technology and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 2685 of 2014
Decided On: 15.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: S.S. Dey, M. Nath, D.P. Borah, A. Chattacharjee
For the Respondents: S.C. Keyal, S.P. Choudhury
Headnote:
Constitution of India –Article 226 –National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 –Section 11 and 13 – Finance Committee – Irregularity or Illegality – Legality annulment of the nominations of petitioners as members of Board of Governors of National Institute of Technology is called into question in this writ petition. Though facts pleaded by the petitioners are many questions for decision of this Court are really not so. Both the petitioners are the employees of the National Institute of Technology, Silchar; the petitioner No. 1 is presently serving as Professor in Department of Civil Engineering, while petitioner presently working as an Assistant Professor in Department of Mechanical Engineering respondent professional institutes established under National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 case of petitioners is that respondent is an instrumentality of State within meaning of Article 12 Constitution of India and is amenable to writ jurisdiction – Held, Whether prejudice has been caused to employee or not on account of denial of opportunity of hearing to petitioners before annulling their nominations has to be considered on facts and circumstances of each case – If no prejudice is likely to be caused to them, to direct respondent authorities to hear petitioners before annulling their nominations will amount to an "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice – Though aforesaid observations were made by Apex Court in Managing Director context of a departmental enquiry in my judgment underlying principles are clearly applicable to case at hand – Consequently many other contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners need not be gone into on principle that courts do not decide more than what is necessary – Academic body should be free from factional politics study atmosphere should rather be preserved and maintained in our educational campuses at any cost – Appeal dismissed.
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
1. The legality of the annulment of the nominations of the petitioners as members of the Board of Governors of the National Institute of Technology, Silchar is called into question in this writ petition. Though facts pleaded by the petitioners are many, the questions for the decision of this Court are really not so. Both the petitioners are the employees of the National Institute of Technology, Silchar; the petitioner No. 1 is presently serving as Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering, while the petitioner No. 2 is presently working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. The respondent No. 1 is one of the professional institutes established under the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 ("the Act"). The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Section 11(f) of the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 as amended in 2012 stipulates that one Professor and one Assistant Professorial or a Lecturer of the Institute are to be nominated as members of the Board of Governors by the Senate. The petitioners were accordingly nominated by election as the nominees of the Senate in the 37th meeting of the Senate held on 20.11.2013: copies whereof were circulated by the Registrar, NIT, Silchar (respondent 5) on 5.12.2013. The Board of the Governors in its 38th meeting held on 10.8.2013 approved the resolution for nomination of its nominees by election. Consequent upon their election as the Senate representatives to the Board of Governors, the respondent No. 5 issued the letter dated 29.11.2013, inter alia, stating that they were nominated through election to the Board of Governors with the approval of the Chairman, Board of Governors on 29.11.2013. Having been elected as Members of the Board of Governors, the petitioners were invited to attend the 40th meeting of the Board of Governors to be held on 15.12.2013 vide the letter dated 30.11.2013 issued by the respondent No. 5.
2. According to the petitioners, by virtue of their becoming members of the Board of Governors, they were also nominated as members of the Finance Committee of the NIT, Silchar. Consequently, the respondent No. 5 invited them to attend the 27th meeting of the Finance Committee to be held on 15.12.2013. The petitioners duly attended the 40th meeting of the Board of Governors as well as the 27th meeting of the Finance Committee on 15.12.2013. After more than a month of the two meetings, the petitioners were handed over the minutes of the 40th meeting of the Board of Governors and the 27th meeting of the Finance Committee. On going through the copies of the minutes of the two meetings served upon them, they found to their horror that only the signatures of the Chairman of the Board of Governors and the respondent No. 5 were found and further that the minutes included therein several resolutions which were neither discussed nor adopted/resolved at all in those meetings. Alarmed by this, the petitioners objected to such unauthorised inclusion of resolutions/subjects in those meetings and their dissenting notes were accordingly e-mailed to the respondent No. 5 and other Members of the Board of Governors with copies of the said dissenting notes. The manners in which the minutes are to be recorded, circulated among the members and to be approved have been violated by the respondent No. 4 and 5.
3. In the meantime, they received invitation to attend the 41st meeting of the Board of Governors scheduled for 24.4.2014 vide the letter dated 8.4.2014. However, apparently prompted by their dissenting notes and protests against the minutes of the two meetings, the invitations issued to them were abruptly withdrawn on the eve of the 41st meeting purportedly on the ground that their no
