Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. H. A. Raza and Bhagwan Din, JJ.
RAM GOPAL, CHAIRMAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 20726 Of 1997
Decided On : 09/03/1998
The Allahabad High Court ruled on the powers of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (UPHESC) and the state government's authority over it. The court addressed four main issues: 1. Whether the state government can issue directions to the UPHESC under Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Control Over Public Corporations Act, 1975 (Corporation Act) and Section 6(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (Commission Act), especially when such directions relate to legislative activities. 2. Whether the removal of the UPHESC Chairman and members was valid, considering Section 6 of the Commission Act and Rule 5 of the Commission Rules, 1981. 3. Whether the removal of the UPHESC Chairman and members was discriminatory, as one member who was equally responsible for the selection decisions was not removed. 4. Whether the petitioners were disqualified due to an amending Ordinance of 1997, which was not retrospective in nature. The court held: 1. The state government cannot issue directions to the UPHESC under Section 2 of the Corporation Act or Section 6(3) of the Commission Act that interfere with the UPHESC's legislative functions, as this would be an encroachment on the UPHESC's statutory powers and duties. 2. The removal of the UPHESC Chairman and members was invalid because the state government failed to follow the proper procedure outlined in Section 6(2) of the Commission Act and Rule 5 of the Commission Rules, 1981, which require an investigation and proof of misconduct before removal. 3. The removal of the UPHESC Chairman and members was discriminatory because one member who was equally responsible for the selection decisions was not removed, indicating a lack of fair and reasonable treatment. 4. The petitioners were not disqualified due to the amending Ordinance of 1997 because it was not retrospective in nature and did not apply to their appointments. The court issued writs of certiorari to quash the impugned orders and a writ of mandamus directing the state government to reinstate the petitioners, except for one whose term had expired, with all consequential benefits. The court also awarded special costs to the petitioners due to the humiliation, insult, and loss of reputation they suffered as a result of the state government's actions.
Fact of the Case:
The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (UPHESC) was established under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, to select teachers for colleges affiliated with or recognized by universities. The state government issued several directions to the UPHESC under the Corporation Act and the Commission Act, seeking to stay the selection process for teachers and principals. The UPHESC resisted these directions, arguing that they interfered with its legislative functions. The state government then removed the UPHESC Chairman and members from their positions, citing misconduct and ineligibility due to an amending Ordinance. The petitioners, the removed Chairman and members, challenged these actions in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the state government's directions to the UPHESC were invalid because they encroached upon the UPHESC's legislative functions. The court also found that the removal of the UPHESC Chairman and members was invalid because the state government failed to follow the proper procedure for investigating and proving misconduct. Additionally, the court held that the removal was discriminatory because one member who was equally responsible for the selection decisions was not removed. Finally, the court found that the petitioners were not disqualified due to the amending Ordinance of 1997 because it was not retrospective in nature.
Issues: 1. Whether the state government can issue directions to the UPHESC under Section 2 of the Corporation Act and Section 6(3) of the Commission Act, especially when such directions relate to legislative activities. 2. Whether the removal of the UPHESC Chairman and members was valid, considering Section 6 of the Commission Act and Rule 5 of the Commission Rules, 1981. 3. Whether the removal of the UPHESC Chairman and members was discriminatory, as one member who was equally responsible for the selection decisions was not removed. 4. Whether the petitioners were disqualified due to an amending Ordinance of 1997, which was not retrospective in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the state government cannot issue directions to the UPHESC under Section 2 of the Corporation Act or Section 6(3) of the Commission Act that interfere with the UPHESC's legislative functions, as this would be an encroachment on the UPHESC's statutory powers and duties. The court also held that the removal of the UPHESC Chairman and members was invalid because the state government failed to follow the proper procedure outlined in Section 6(2) of the Commission Act and Rule 5 of the Commission Rules, 1981, which require an investigation and proof of misconduct before removal. Additionally, the court held that the removal was discriminatory because one member who was equally responsible for the selection decisions was not removed, indicating a lack of fair and reasonable treatment. Finally, the court held that the petitioners were not disqualified due to the amending Ordinance of 1997 because it was not retrospective in nature and did not apply to their appointments.
Final Decision: The court issued writs of certiorari to quash the impugned orders and a writ of mandamus directing the state government to reinstate the petitioners, except for one whose term had expired, with all consequential benefits. The court also awarded special costs to the petitioners due to the humiliation, insult, and loss of reputation they suffered as a result of the state government's actions.
( 1 ) THE fate of this writ petition which has been filed by M/s. Ram Gopal Chandra. Daya Ram singh and Raj Kishore. Singh. the Chairman and Members of U. P. Higher Education and services Commission, hinges on the reply to the following questions. 1. Whether a direction restraining the Commission to make selections can be issued by the Stale government in exercise of its powers under Section 2 of U. P. State Control of Public corporation Act. 1975 (hereinafter referred as Corporation Act, 1975) and Section 6 (3) of U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. because selection covers the legislative activity.
( 2 ) WHETHER the impugned order of removal passed against the petitioner No. 1 from the post of chairman and against remaining two who are the members of the Commission is non est inasmuch as the same is in violation of Section 6 of the U. P. Higher Education Services commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Commission Act, 1980) and Rule 5 of the rules framed thereunder.
( 3 ) WHETHER the order of removal passed against the petitioners is discriminatory inasmuch as one member, who was equally responsible for the decision of the Commission in the matter of selection of candidates was not removed while the petitioners have" been removed.
( 4 ) WHETHER the petitioners were disqualified on account of the amending Ordinance of 1997, which is not retrospective in nature.
2. The factual matrix in short compass as set out in the writ petition is that the U. P. Higher education Services Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter called the Commission) was created by virtue of U. P. Act No. 16 of 1960, which came into force on 21. 8. 1980 which is body corporate for the appointment of teachers to the colleges affiliated to or recognised by the University and for matter connected therewith or Incidental thereto. Sections 11 and 12 vests powers with the commission with regard to the appointment of teachers including Principals. The said commission is a statutory body and was created on the pattern of U. P. Public Service commission, enjoys autonomy in the matters of selection of teachers and Principals.
3. Sections 19. 22 (1 ). 22 (2), 28, 31. 31 (a ). 32 and 92 vest powers with the State Government only in matters of financial control and issue direction in the matter of appointment of employees because under the Act. State has to arrange funds for the effective functioning of the commission.
4. The object and reason of the Act indicates that the Commission has been established for selection of teachers for the institutions of higher level. The Commission enjoys autonomous statutory powers to make selection free from fear and favour or undue influence and pressure. However, the State Government has been conferred with the powers to take disciplinary action against the members on the ground specified in Section 6 (1) of the Act, but the Act does not vest any power with the State Government to supersede or repeal the Commission. The object for which the Commission was created, was to stop the arbitrary appointments of teachers and principals, which were usually made by the management of such institutions to stall the process of appointing ad hoc teachers by the management and the educational authorities.
( 5 ) THE Commission discharges its statutory and legislative obligation only after receiving the due intimation of vacancies from the Directorate of Higher Education.
( 6 ) IN pursuance of such an intimation, the Commission issued advertisement on 13. 12. 1996 for making selection on the various posts of Principal. Similarly, requisition was sent by the Director of Higher Education to the Commission for making selection for the post of Lecturers, and the commission issued advertisement for the same on 13. 12. 1996.
( 7 ) THE process of selection was expedited for the reason that in one of the writ petition, a division Bench of this Court directed the Commission to complete the process of regular selec
AI
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
