Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 704
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Backward Class Employees Welfare Association of I.I.T.(M) represented by its Secretary Versus
The Chairman & Others
W.P.No.3570 of 1998 and W.M.P.Nos.5354 and 5355 of 1998
Decided on : 12-03-2009
For the Petitioner:K. Shanmuga Kani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R4, Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel, R. Parthiban, R5 and R6, T.Srinivasamoorthy, R2, R3, R7 and R9, S. Srinivasan, Advocates.
Courts will refrain from interfering with decisions of academic institutions unless there is demonstrative illegality or unconstitutionality.
Headnote:
Institutes of Technology Act 1961 - Unconstitutionality of Statutes - Clauses 9.10, 12.1, 12.6, 12.8, 12.10, 15.1, 15.2 - The court discussed the impugned statutes and their provisions, emphasizing the power of the Director and the Board in making appointments, and the appointment of eminent persons on contract. The court also highlighted the disregard of the Act and the Statutes by the Director in making appointments, and the alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition was filed to declare certain statutes framed under the Institutes of Technology Act 1961 as unconstitutional and ultra vires. The petitioner also sought to quash appointments made on ad-hoc basis for various faculty positions.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the impugned statutes were not unconstitutional and declined to cancel the ad-hoc appointments.
Issues: Constitutionality of the statutes under the Institutes of Technology Act 1961, validity of ad-hoc appointments, violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for demonstrative illegality or unconstitutionality to invalidate decisions of academic institutions, and the caution expressed by the Supreme Court in interfering with such decisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner association represented by its Secretary.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to declare certain statutes framed under the Institutes of Technology Act 1961 are unconstitutional and ultra vires. The attack is made against clauses 9.10, 12.1, 12.6, 12.8, 12.10, 15.1 and 15.2 of the statutes called as the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur/Bombay/Madras/Kanpur/Delhi Statutes. Apart from the declaration of these statutes as violative of Articles 14 and 16, a consequential prayer for calling for the records pertaining to the appointments to various faculty positions and quash all the appointments made on ad-hoc basis for the post of Temporary Technical Assistants, Temporary Senior Scientific Officer 1, Senior Scientific Officer 1 on contract, Temporary Senior Scientific Officer 2, Senior Scientific Officer 2 on contract, Lecturer on contract, Lecturer on ad-hoc basis, Assistant Professor on contract, Visiting Professor on ad-hoc basis, Visiting faculty on ad-hoc basis, Professors on ad-hoc basis, Part-time faculties, Visiting Part-time faculties, Visiting Part-Time Professors, Part-time Lecturer, Re-employment of retired staff on Contract, Re-employment of Retired Faculty as Consultant is also made.
3. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit it has been averred as follows:
"The specific instances of ad hoc appointments and selection through backdoor are elaborated in the annexure appended to this affidavit which when perused would reflect the utter disregard and callous attitude of the respondent to the normal procedure of appointments contemplated under the Act. I crave leave to add the affected parties as respondents to the above writ petition, as early as I get to know the full list of persons selected under the ad hoc basis and as soon as the said list is furnished to me by the respondents."
4. In the annexure though it is stated that a copy of the annexure was appended to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, no such annexure was found in the affidavit filed. The counsel for the petitioner furnished a copy of the annexure alleged to have been filed along with the writ petition. It contained various names of faculties appointed on ad-hoc basis by the second and third respondents. No attempts were made to implead all the persons likely to be affected in case the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition.
5. It is seen from the typed set of papers (page 274) that the 7th respondent Dr.P.Bhyrappa was appointed as Assistant Professor on contract basis for two years in the Chemistry Department with effect from 29. 1997. Similarly, the 8th respondent Dr.N.Narasimha Murthy was appointed on contract basis for two years with effect from 8. 1997 (Page 272). In the same way, the 9th respondent Dr.Ms.Sohini Paldey was appointed as Assistant Professor on contract basis in the Metallurgical Engineering Department with effect from 11. 1998. Excepting for these three persons, the petitioner association did not make the affected parties as party respondents to the writ petition. Though it was claimed as soon as they got full list of persons they will make them parties, in spite of the fact the writ petition was pending for over 10 years no such efforts have been made. The second portion of the prayer to cancel the appointments in respect of the persons whose names are found in the annexure cannot be granted. The writ petition is liable to be rejected on that ground.
6. The Supreme Court vide judgment in Prabodh Verma And Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Reported In 1984 (4) SCC Page 251 In paragraphs 28 and 50.1 held as follows:
"28. The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh case. Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable, defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessa
