The necessity for strict adherence to statutory mandates in administrative hearings is emphasized, highlighting that procedural violations invalidate resultant decisions.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is at the instance of the 1^st petitioner, a Charitable Society, and the 2^nd petitioner, a college run by the 1st petitioner Society, seeking to challenge Ext.P1 order dated 3.11.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent herein on an appeal filed by the 1^st respondent herein. 2. The 1^st respondent was admittedly an employee working with the 2^nd petitioner college. The 1^st respondent was terminated from service during the year 2021. With reference to the provisions of the Kerala Self Financing College Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the 1^st respondent herein sought to prefer an appeal before the authority as prescribed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. The appeal preferred as above came to be disposed of by Ext.P1 order dated 3.11.2023 directing the reinstatement of the 1^st respondent herein. It is the afore order that is being challenged in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Madhu Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. T.N. Sreekala, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, as well as Sri. Surin George Ipe, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent University.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to challenge the order at Ext.P1 both on merits as well as on the impropriety of the order issued by the 2^nd respondent without actually carrying out any hearing on the matter. As regards the contentions raised on merits, I am not considering the same in this writ petition, since on a perusal of the order at Ext.P1, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed for the reasons noticed hereunder.

5. The provisions of Section 5 of the Act read as under:

Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by the disciplinary action of the educational agency under sub-section (7) of Section 4, shall file appeal before the University in which such self financing college is affiliated to, in such manner as may be prescribed. The Vice- Chancellor of such University shall dispose of the appeal and any decision thereon shall be final.”

6. Thus, as against the orders/proceedings in disciplinary steps taken by the educational authority, the person aggrieved is entitled to file an appeal before the University in the manner prescribed. The appeal filed as above is required to be considered and disposed of by the ‘Vice Chancellor’ of such University. In the case at hand, the counsel for the petitioner specifically raised a contention to the effect that the hearing was not conducted by the Vice Chancellor. According to the petitioner, the hearing as regards the 1^st respondent herein as well as the petitioners were conducted by another authority — the Registrar.

8. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent also shows that the hearing was conducted by the Registrar of the University, as admitted in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit dated 19.3.2024.

9. As against the afore, the order at Ext.P1 shows that the hearing was carried out on 23.9.2023 but the order is silent as to who conducted the hearing — whether the Registrar or the Vice Chancellor.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who had himself appeared before the appellate authority under Section

5 of the Act, would emphatically point out that they had not appeared for any hearing before the Vice Chancellor and that the hearing was conducted by the Registrar, which has been accepted also in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent herein.

11. Though the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would state that the petitioner, after having appeared for the hearing, is estopped from challenging the same, I am of the opinion that when the statute re