SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(All) 428

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
OM PRAKASH, J.
Bans Gopal Misra - Appellant
Versus
Kulpati, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9255 of 1983 connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5230 of 1984
Decided on : Apr 23, 1991

Advocates appeared:
B.D. Mandhyan, A.K. Sharma, R.P. Mishra

The Vice-Chancellor does not have the power to review his approval of the appointment of a teacher.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL - APPROVAL OF VICE-CHANCELLOR - DISMISSAL OF PRINCIPAL - APPROVAL OF VICE-CHANCELLOR - REVIEW OF APPROVAL - POWER OF VICE-CHANCELLOR - U. P. STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1973 (19 OF 1973), SEC. 35(2).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Sri Bans Gopal Misra, was appointed as the Principal of Sri Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya Khekra, a college affiliated to Sampurnand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya Varanasi. The Vice-Chancellor approved his appointment on 3-4-1981. However, the management committee of the college passed a resolution on 30-10-1982, dismissing the petitioner from service without seeking prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order and sought payment of salary from July 1981 till the date he resumes duties.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the dismissal order was illegal as it was passed without the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor, as required under Section 35(2) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. The court also held that the Vice-Chancellor did not have the power to review his approval of the petitioner's appointment, as the order dated 18-1-1981, by which he refused to approve the recommendation of the selection committee, was not an order of disapproval as envisaged by clause (c) of subsection (11) of section 31 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner could be dismissed by the committee of management without seeking prior approval by the Vice-Chancellor. 2. Whether the Vice-Chancellor had the power to review his approval of the petitioner's appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 35(2) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 mandates that every decision of the management to dismiss or remove a teacher shall, before it is communicated to him, be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it is approved by the Vice-Chancellor. 2. The Vice-Chancellor does not have the power to review his approval of the appointment of a teacher.

Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal order and directed the management committee to pay the petitioner's salary from July 1981 till he resumes duties. The court also dismissed the writ petition filed by the management committee challenging the Vice-Chancellor's approval of the petitioner's appointment.

JUDGMENT

Om Prakash

1. As common questions of law and fact arise in these two writ petitions and as they are connected by the Courts order, they are disposed of by a common order.

2. As the facts are almost common in both the writ petitions, they are, brieflly, stated, with reference to the writ petition of Sri Bans Gopal Misra. One Sri Ganga Dhar Sharma, Principal of Sri Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya Khekra, a college affiliated to Sampurnand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya Varanasi retired in June, 1979 and then Sri Bhagwat Dutta Tripathi was appointed as an officiating Principal. The post of the Principal was advertised in July, 1980. Whereas the selection committee according to the management committee of aforesaid college, recommended the name of Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj for the post of Principal on 17th August, 1980, according to the petitioner the selection committee recommended his name. It is averred that as the management was deeply interested in Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj and, therefore, it made interpolations in the recommendations of the selection committee in such a way so as to read that not the petitioner but Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj was recommended by the selection committee. Thereupoa, the management referred the name of Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj to the Vice-Chancellor for seeking his approval. The said name was not approved by the Vice-Chancellor by the order dated 18-1-1981 on the ground that there was some manipulation in the recommendation of the selection committee and he directed that steps be taken for a fresh selection. By the order dated 3-4-1981, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, the name of Sri Bans Gopal Misra was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. It is averred by the petitioner that he took over charge on 12-6-1981 and continued to work. On 31-10-1982, the committee of management passed a resolution dismissing the petitioner which was conveyed to the petitioner by the letter dated 2-11- 1982, Annexure 16 to the writ petition. It is this order which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner.

In the writ petition filed by Sri Bhagwat Dutta Tripathi and by the Committee of Management, the aforesaid order dated 3-4-1981 whereby the name of Sri Bans Gopal Misra was approved by the Vice-Chancellor for. the post of Principal and the order dated 21-2-1984, Annexure 6 to the writ petition whereby the representation of Sri Bhagwat Dutta Tripathi challenging the validity of the order dated 3-4-1981 was rejected by the Vice-Chancellor, are sought to be quashed. The contention of the petitioners is that the Vice- Chancellor is not possessed of the power of review and, therefore, after having disapproved the name of Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj he could not have approved the name of Sri Bans Gopal Misra. It is, therefore, prayed by these petitioners that both the orders dated 3-4-1981 and 21-2-1984 be quashed. Writ Petition No. 9255 of 1983 :

3. The only question emerging in this writ petition for consideration is whether the petitioner could be dismissed by the committee of management without seeking prior approval by the Vice-Chancellor. Sub-section (2) of section 35 of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (for short, the Act, 1973) mandates that every decision of the management to dismiss or remove a teacher which word includes a Principal within the meaning of sub-section (18) of section 2 of the Act, 1973, shall before it is communicated to him, be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it is approved by the Vice-Chancellor. Similar provision is made in Statute 11.31 Part II, Chapter XI of the Ist Statute of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya Varanasi made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Act, 1973. So prior approval by the Vice-Chancellor is a condition precedent to the order of dismissal of a Principal. Unless the approval is accorded by the Vice-Chancellor, no teacher or Principal can be dismissed within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top