Back
2001 Supreme(Ker) 672
High Court of Kerala
K.S. Radhakrishnan, G. Sasidharan, JJ.
Dr V N Rajasekharan Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Chancellor M G University & Anr - Respondent
O.P. No. 10798 of 1998
Decided On : 11-04-2001
Headnote:
Kerala Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985 – Section 7(4) & 7(10) –Power of Vice Chancellor – Proceedings – Findings of – Held, S. 16 of Chapter IV explains who are all the "authorities" of the University. – Senate Syndicate, Academic Council etc. are the authorities of the University. – Proviso to S.7(4) obliges the Chancellor to call upon such authority to show cause and not the Vice Chancellor who is an officer of the University. S. 9 of the Act explains who are all the officers of the University. – Vice Chancellor, Pro-Vice Chancellor, Registrar etc. are the officers of the University. – Only provision under which the Chancellor could proceed against the Vice Chancellor is under S. 7(10) of the Act. – It is clear from S. 7(10) that only on charges of misappropriation or mismanagement of funds or misbehaviour of the Chancellor could proceed against the Vice Chancellor and remove him from the post of Vice Chancellor. – Once court finds there was a valid resolution Court is of the view that the University and the authorities can act on the basis of the said resolution and the said action is legal and valid. – Ext. P-9 Order, issued by the Chancellor proceeds on the basis that the Chancellor had ordered inquiry into the allegation against the Vice Chancellor regarding purchase of land and building at Cheruvandoor. – After obtaining the Commission Report the Chancellor has issued note, dated 22nd April, 1998 to the Vice Chancellor under S. 7(4) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 requesting him to appear in person before the Chancellor is not legally obliged to answer the proceedings initiated by the Chancellor under S. 7(4). – Chancellor in exercise of the powers under can only annul the proceedings of any proceeding of any of the authorities of the "University". Chapter IV of the Act deals with the authorities of the University.
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Petitioner was the Vice Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi University. He joined as such on 25th March 1996. He is aggrieved by Exts. P9, P12 and P15 Orders. Ext. P15 is an Order passed by the Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi University under S.7(4) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act annulling resolution No. 932, dated 13th November 1996 passed by the Syndicate of the University and the finding that the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar had no authority to enter into an agreement for the purchase of Cheruvandoor property and to make payment to Father Cyriac Puthenpura and that he had acted without the sanction of the Syndicate. Petitioner is also aggrieved by some of the other findings rendered by the Chancellor based on the report of the Commission appointed by the Chancellor as well as some of the findings and observations made by the Commissioner details of which we shall deal with later in this Judgment. Decision of the Chancellor to take further proceedings on the basis of the observations and findings of the Commission was also challenged by the petitioner in this proceeding. Vice Chancellor submitted that he had acted only within his authority and on the basis of the various decisions taken by the Syndicate. Petitioner submits all his actions, decisions taken, and orders passed are for the best interest of the University and the students and not for any personal gain
2. Before we deal with various issues involved in this case, we have to examine some essential facts for a proper understanding of the controversy.
3. Mahatma Gandhi University was set up as a teaching and affiliating University in the State to provide for the urgent development of higher education in the areas comprised in the Kottayam,Ernakulam and Idukki, Alleppey and Pathanamthitta Revenue Districts of the State. University was constituted by the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (Act 12 of 1985). The University had its headquarters at Kottayam. It had no infrastructure to start many of the courses envisaged under the Act and Statutes framed thereunder. Office building of the University and Department of feme courses were to be housed in rented buildings. Lack of proper accommodation for its constituent schools and Departments was all along a perennial problem faced by the University. An amount of Rs. 3.3 lakhs was being spent by the University by way of rent of the buildings taken on lease by the University. Lack of infrastructure facilities and building etc. aggravated after starting various new job-oriented courses, under the school of Medical Education and School of Technology and applied Sciences. Even before starting these courses extent of 3.59 acres of land with building numbers 78, 79, 80 and 81. at Cheruvandoor in Ettumanoor Panchayat owned by Father Puthenpura was in the possession of the University, Agreement of lease was executed by the University and Father Puthenpura on 5th October 1988 by which the Cheruvandoor property was leased out to the University by Father Puthenpura which consisted of buildings with an area of 37.388 sq.ft. Monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 21,600 along with service charges of Rs. 5,400 per month.
4. Mahatma Gandhi University had in the meantime decided to start various para-medical courses under the School of Medical Education. Various technical courses under the School of Technology and Applied Sciences required the approval of the National Assessment and Accreditation bodies like Pharmacy Council of India, Nursing Council, A.I.C.T.E. etc. School of Medical Education was accordingly instituted in 1993 to visualise and implement the policy of the University Grants Commission. School was structured to prepare professionals of high standard to overcome the imbalances in the Health Manpower Structure and Health Care System. Finances for creating the infrastructure and running cost of the School were intended to be generated from the tuition and other fees and N.R.I, remittance. The main campus of
