Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju and D. R. Choudhary, JJ.
SUSHIL PRAKASH GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 18525 Of 2000
Decided On : 05/09/2000
suspension - University Institute - U.P. State Universities Act, Section 2(18), Statute 16.07(1), Statute 8.10, Statute 8.11(3) - The court discussed the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act and the University Statutes relating to the suspension of a teacher, including a Director. The court emphasized the requirement of obtaining a recommendation from the Disciplinary Committee before suspending a teacher, as prescribed by the Statutes, and highlighted the potential for discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution if this requirement is not followed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the Director of the Institute of Correspondence Courses and Continuing education, was suspended by the Executive Council of Allahabad University. The petitioner challenged the suspension on the grounds that it was not based on a recommendation from the Disciplinary Committee as required by the University Statutes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension of the petitioner was not in accordance with the University Statutes, which required a recommendation from the Disciplinary Committee before suspending a teacher. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure and highlighted the potential for discrimination if the requirement is not followed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suspension of the petitioner was valid without a recommendation from the Disciplinary Committee as required by the University Statutes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension of a teacher, including a Director, must be based on a recommendation from the Disciplinary Committee as prescribed by the University Statutes. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure and highlighted the potential for discrimination if the requirement is not followed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned resolution and orders, and emphasized that the Executive Council could pass a fresh order after obtaining the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certtorari to quash the Impugned resolution dated 9. 3. 2000 passed by the Executive Council of Allahabad University vide Annexure-12 to the petition, and the orders dated 10. 3. 2000 and 11. 3. 2000 passed by the Registrar vide annexures-13 and 14 to the writ petition.
( 2 ) WE have heard Sri R. N. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. R. G. Padia learned counsel for the respondents.
( 3 ) THE petitioner is the Director of the Institute of Correspondence Courses and Continuing education (hereinafter referred to as the Institute ). The University of Allahabad established it after obtaining prior sanction from the University Grants Commission. The University framed ordinances relating to the Institute which are contained in Chapter XXXV of the University calendar vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
( 4 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the Institute was established in the year 1976 and is continuing since then. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the petition that the vice-Chancellor of the University wanted to abolish the Institute to help the establishment of rajarshi Purushottam Das Tandon Open University. In paragraph 10 of the petition, is stated that in pursuance of this design the Registrar of the University issued a communication restraining the petitioner from taking admissions in the Institute in B. A. Part-1 and B. Com. Part-I for the session 1999-2000. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 29309 of 1999 which was dismissed by a learned single Judge by means of judgment dated 5. 10. 1999 vide Annexure-8 to the petition. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a Special Appeal No. 1170 of 1999 in this Court in which the following Interim order was passed :
"heard learned counsels for the parties at some length. On the facts and circumstances of the case we pass an interim order that the Director of the Institute can make admissions for the B. A. and B. Com. First year classes in the Correspondence course subject to the supervisory control of the Vice-Chancellor who will ensure that no admissions are done illegally or arbitrarily. However, this order will be subject to the final decision of the Special Appeal. The Director will continue in service till further orders. "
( 5 ) ULTIMATELY the Special Appeal was disposed of by the judgment dated 9. 2. 2000 vide annexure-11 to the petition. By that judgment, the petitioner was permitted to file a representation to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. and till disposal of the representation, the interim order was to continue. In paragraph 29 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner filed a representation before the Chancellor on 29. 2. 2000 which is still pending. In paragraph 30 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner made admissions in b. A. and B. Com. , Part-I for the Session 1999-2000 in pursuance of the interim order of the division Bench, and this is alleged to have annoyed the respondents. Hence the petitioner has been suspended by the impugned resolution of the Executive Council dated 9. 3. 2000 vide annexure-12 to the petition. By the consequential order of the Registrar dated 11. 3. 2000, he has been directed to hand over the charge and the keys of the Institute to the Convenor of the committee which has been constituted to manage the Institute vide Annexure-14 to the petition.
( 6 ) IN paragraph 34 of the petition, it is alleged that the resolution of the Executive Council shows that the petitioner was suspended because he disobeyed some orders of the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 35 of the petition that he did not disobey any such order. In paragraph 36 of the petition, it is stated that it is alleged that the petitioner did not pay salary to the employees of the Institution in time. In paragraph 37 of the petition, it is stated that these averments are false and baseless and the impug
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
