K. A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The petitioner, the management of a private college affiliated to the third respondent Mahatma Gandhi University initiated disciplinary action against the second respondent, a teacher in the service of the management in that private college. The disciplinary action ended in imposition of a major penalty of compulsory retirement. The teacher thereupon filed an appeal invoking the provisions contained in S.63(6) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act before the Tribunal constituted in terms of S.60 of that Act. The Tribunal issued a notice. The petitioner, the respondents in the said appeal, on the file of the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram appeared pursuant to that notice from the

Tribunal and raised a preliminary contention regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The petitioner contended that the appellate power conferred on the Mahatma Gandhi Appellate Tribunal including for reinstatement of the teacher concerned in case the order of the management is found to be illegal is a transgression into the rights available to the petitioner management in terms of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner belongs to a minority community. In support of that contention petitioner relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina, (19.79) 2 SCC 124 and Lilly Kurian v. University Appellate Tribunal, (1997) 2 SCC 240. In the first case, anyhow the Supreme Court did not consider whether the appellate power is a transgression on the right of the management under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. This was concerning the Kerala University Act, 1974. The Supreme Court made it clear that "we refrain from making any observation with regard to that appeal. We wish to say that the validity of Ss.60(7), 61 and 65 was not in question before us, and so we express no opinion in regard thereto. "

2. S.60(7) is regarding the consideration of the appeal and 61 is regarding past

disputes. S.65 is regarding the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal.

3. After the dismissal of the appeal, again Lilly Kurian approached this Court

raising a contention that S.60(7) was bad. A Full Bench of this Court held that Ss.60(7) and 61 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 because it conferred uncanalised and unguided power to the Appellate Tribunal were inconsistent with fundamental rights guaranteed by Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. The matter was taken up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held in 1997 (2) SCC 240 as follows:

"This Court held that the conferment of a right of appeal to an outside authority (like the Vice-Chancellor in that case) took away the disciplinary power of a minority educational authority, particularly because the appellate power was unlimited and undefined. The grounds on which he could interfere had not been defined and he had unlimited powers, including the power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Such an unguided and uncanalised power which could be exercised in appeal constituted interference with the right of minority institution to administer its own institutions. It could not be construed merely as a check on maladministration. The same is the position with Ss.60(7) and 61 of the Kerala University Act of 1974. Once again the power of appeal is 'uncanalised' and 'unguided' and the Appellate Tribunal can even order reinstatement of a dismissed teacher. In the light of the ratio laid down by these decisions, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, in the impugned judgement, has rightly held that S.60(7) and S.61 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 give powers to the Appellate Tribunal that are uncanalised and unguided. These Sections are, therefore, inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed to religious and linguistic minorities by Art.30(1) of the Constitution. We do not see any reason to take a different view. Obviously we are not concerned in the present appeal with the provisions of the Mahatma G