IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
Jharkhand Evening College, Koderma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 1474 of 2022
Decided on : 02-01-2024
(A) Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 - Section 60 - Constitution of Governing Body - The Vice Chancellor's authority to constitute an Ad hoc Governing Body is limited to situations where no regular Governing Body exists, as per Section 60(4) - The existing Governing Body must be dissolved before an Ad hoc body can be formed. (Paras 12, 16, 17)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Vice Chancellor lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the constitution of the Governing Body of a private unaided college unless it is found to be illegally constituted. (Paras 3, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Vice Chancellor's order constituting an Ad hoc Governing Body for a private unaided college, asserting that a valid Governing Body already existed.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Vice Chancellor could only form an Ad hoc Governing Body if the existing one was dissolved, reaffirming the authority of the college's founders to constitute the Governing Body.
Issues: Whether the Vice Chancellor has the power to constitute a regular Governing Body for a private unaided college.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Vice Chancellor's powers are limited to forming an Ad hoc Governing Body and that the college's management has the authority to form a permanent Governing Body as per Section 60(1).
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged Memo No. VBU/Esstt/IOC-25/834/2020 dated 18.5.2020 (Annexure-3) by which, the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, has constituted Ad hoc Governing Body of the Jharkhand Evening College, Koderma, Ashram Road, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. and District-Koderma. Further the authority of the Vice Chancellor, to constitute the said Ad hoc Governing Body is also under challenge, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Governing Body of the college had already been constituted and is managing the affairs of the college. When already a Governing Body duly constituted as per law exists, without dissolving the same, the Vice Chancellor does not derive any power or authority under the Universities Act or the Statute framed thereunder, to constitute an Ad hoc Governing Body by the impugned order. It is his contention that the college being a Private unaided college, though affiliated with Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, the Vice Chancellor of the University has got no power to interfere with the constitution of the Governing Body, which was duly constituted in terms of Section 60(1) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Universities Act') and being a Private unaided college, the University has got no right to interfere with the affairs of the College. It is his further contention that it is only the founders of the college, who have the right to constitute the Governing Body, but in accordance with Section 60 of the Universities Act. Since there is no complain of any violation of Section 2. 60 of the Universities Act, the impugned action of the Vice Chancellor, constituting the Ad hoc Governing Body is bad and the same needs to be set aside.
4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the University, submits that it is only the Vice Chancellor, who is authorized under the Universities Act to constitute a Governing Body of a private unaided college. Since the affiliation is granted by the University, the University derives power from the Act and the Statute to constitute the Governing Body of any college, being a private unaided college or minority college or a government college. He further submits that Section 60(4) of the Universities Act gives ample power to the Vice Chancellor to constitute an Ad hoc Governing Body for the management of the college. Since the Vice Chancellor has the power under the Act to constitute an Ad hoc Governing Body, it will be deemed that he is vested with power to constitute Governing Body of the college. Since the original Governing Body was not formed by the Vice Chancellor, an Ad hoc body was constituted by the Chancellor vide the impugned order. It is his further contention that even if the contention of the petitioner is taken to be correct that there exists a Governing Body, but the said Governing Body consists of 14 persons, which is against the provision of Section 60(1) of the Universities Act, as the same provides that a Governing Body should consist of only 07 persons. In the instant case, the Governing Body consisted of 14 persons, which makes the same void. As per him, since the Governing Body is not constituted as per the Universities Act or Statute and not by the Vice Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor by exercising power and jurisdiction under Section 60(4) of the Universities Act has constituted the Ad hoc Governing Body till a fresh Governing Body is duly constituted as per Section 60(1) of the University Act by the University. He takes this Court through the statute framed under the Universities Act regarding constitution of the Governing Body. He refers to several provisions of the Act and Statute to impress the Court that it is only the Vice Chancellor/Syndicate, who is empowered to constitute the Governing Body of any college. He also submits th
The Vice Chancellor can only constitute an Ad hoc Governing Body if no regular Governing Body exists, reaffirming the authority of the college's founders to form the permanent body.
The court established that the advisory nature of governing bodies under the M.G. University Act does not compromise the management autonomy of minority educational institutions guaranteed by Article....
Governing Body” or the “Managing Council” — which are mentioned in Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act” — are only advisory in nature and distinct from the Management or Educational Agency,....
The court held that procedural lapses in committee formation must be addressed to avoid arbitrariness in university governance.
The Vice Chancellor has the authority to cancel meetings, and decisions made by unauthorized majorities do not hold validity under statutory provisions.
The court established that only the Director holds the authority for reconstituting the governing body of educational institutions, and any action taken by the Regional Director in this regard is una....
The appointment of Vice-Chancellors must comply with statutory provisions and UGC regulations, ensuring lawful and independent decision-making by the Chancellor.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.