1. Employment dispute — Salary revision — Enforcement of Executive Council resolution — Writ of mandamus. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1411
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : M.B.Shah
Kurukshetra University
Versus
Ramesh Gupta
Case No. : 16437 of 1999
Date of Decision : 12/1/99
Advocates Appeared: Sanghi A.K.
Important Points
A resolution passed by a university's Executive Council is enforceable via a writ of mandamus if it has not been annulled by the Chancellor, as the failure to exercise the power of annulment implies the resolution's conformity with the governing statutes.
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) University Statute - Power of Executive Council and Chancellor - Writ of Mandamus - Enforceability of a resolution passed by the Executive Council regarding salary of an employee - Where the Executive Council approved a recommendation for salary payment, such resolution is enforceable by a writ of mandamus if it has not been annulled by the Chancellor - The Chancellor possesses the power to annul proceedings not in conformity with the Act, Statute, or Ordinance; failure to exercise this power implies the resolution is in conformity or the Chancellor did not deem it fit to interfere (Para 2).
(B) Administrative Law - Mandamus - A resolution of an authority within a statutory body, once approved and not annulled by the competent higher authority, creates an enforceable right that can be realized through a writ of mandamus (Para 2).
Facts of the case:
An employee was previously denied certain salary benefits by a resolution of the university, a decision which attained finality after being upheld by the courts. However, upon a fresh representation, the Executive Council of the university referred the matter to a committee, whose recommendations for salary payment were subsequently approved by the Executive Council. Despite the resolution, the university failed to implement the benefits, leading the employee to seek a writ of mandamus from the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Executive Council is an integral part of the university under its Statute. Since the Chancellor did not exercise the power to annul the resolution, it is presumed to be in conformity with the Statute or Ordinance.
Issues: Whether a resolution of the Executive Council, which was not annulled by the Chancellor, is non est and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a mandamus for its implementation.
Ratio Decidendi: A resolution passed by the Executive Council of a university is enforceable by a court of law through a writ of mandamus provided it has not been annulled by the Chancellor, who is the authority empowered to annul proceedings not in conformity with the governing Act, Statute, or Ordinance.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
(B) Administrative Law - Mandamus - A resolution of an authority within a statutory body, once approved and not annulled by the competent higher authority, creates an enforceable right that can be realized through a writ of mandamus (Para 2).
Facts of the case:
An employee was previously denied certain salary benefits by a resolution of the university, a decision which attained finality after being upheld by the courts. However, upon a fresh representation, the Executive Council of the university referred the matter to a committee, whose recommendations for salary payment were subsequently approved by the Executive Council. Despite the resolution, the university failed to implement the benefits, leading the employee to seek a writ of mandamus from the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Executive Council is an integral part of the university under its Statute. Since the Chancellor did not exercise the power to annul the resolution, it is presumed to be in conformity with the Statute or Ordinance.
Issues: Whether a resolution of the Executive Council, which was not annulled by the Chancellor, is non est and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a mandamus for its implementation.
Ratio Decidendi: A resolution passed by the Executive Council of a university is enforceable by a court of law through a writ of mandamus provided it has not been annulled by the Chancellor, who is the authority empowered to annul proceedings not in conformity with the governing Act, Statute, or Ordinance.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Jurisdiction of High Court — Maintainability of mandamus — Validity of Executive Council resolution under University Statutes. (Para 1 )
3. Executive Council as University authority — Chancellor's power of annulment — Presumption of validity of non-annulled resolutions. (Para 1 , 2 )
4. Enforceability of University Executive Council resolutions — Absence of annulment by Chancellor — Issuance of writ of mandamus. (Para 2 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed — High Court direction to enforce resolution upheld. (Para 2 )
6. Is a resolution passed by a University's Executive Council enforceable by a writ of mandamus?
Yes, if the resolution has not been annulled by the Chancellor using their statutory power to annul proceedings not in conformity with the Act, Statute, or Ordinance, the benefits flowing from such a resolution are enforceable by a court of law via mandamus. (Para 2 )
7. What is the legal effect when a Chancellor does not exercise the power to annul a University authority's proceeding?
If the Chancellor does not exercise the power to annul a proceeding, it can be assumed that the proceeding is in conformity with the provisions of the Statute or Ordinance, or that the Chancellor did not find it fit to interfere. (Para 2 )
8. Does the Executive Council of a University constitute an authority subject to the writ jurisdiction of the court?
Yes, the Executive Council is a part of the University itself under the University Statute, making the University an authority on whom a writ can be issued. (Para 1 , 2 )
(1) THE University has assailed the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana calling upon the University to enforce the resolution of the Executive Council dated 26-4-1994 by which resolution the Executive Council approved the recommendation of Justice Sodhi and decided the salary to be paid to an employee of the University. From the facts narrated, it appears that earlier the University itself did consider the question of salary to the employee concerned and by a resolution dated 16-11-1985 did not grant the relief in question. That resolution of the University dated 16-11-1985 became final inasmuch as the writ petition filed against the same was dismissed and special leave petition to this Court was also dismissed in 1986. Notwithstanding the finality to the aforesaid decision of the University a fresh representation on being filed by the employee in the year 1994, the Executive Council thought it fit to refer the said representation to a committee headed by Justice Sodhi, and that Committee on consideration of all the relevant materials decided as to what the salary of the employee ought to be and with effect from which date. The said recommendation of the Justice Sodhi Committee was given approval by the Executive Council by its resolution dated 26-4-1994. But notwithstanding the aforesaid resolution of the Executive Council, as the same was not implemented by the University, the employee concerned approached the High Court for issuance of writ of mandamus to the University to follow the directions contained in the resolution. The High Court by the impugned order having issued the necessary direction, the University has approached this Court. Mr Sanghi appearing for the University contends that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue any mandamus to the University to grant relief to the employee concerned as per the resolution of the Executive Council dated 26-4-1994. He, further, contends that the said resolution of the Executive Council is nonest, the same not being in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. On examining the relevant materials of the University Statute, we do not find any force in the same. The Executive Council is a part of the University itself under the University Statute.
(2) THE Chancellor has the power to annul any proceedings of any authority of the University which in his opinion is not in conformity with the Act, Statute or the Ordinance. The resolution of the Executive Council being of the year 1994 and the Chancellor not having exercised that power in accordance with the Statute, it can well be assumed that the said resolution is in conformity with the provisions of the Statute or the Ordinance or at least the Chancellor himself never thought it fit to interfere with the said resolution of the Executive Council. Once the resolution of the Executive Council is not being annulled by the Chancellor in exercise of his powers, then the benefits flowing from that resolution can certainly be enforceable by a court of law by issuing a mandamus to the University, who is no other than an authority on whom a writ can be issued. We, therefore, see no infirmity with the impugned direction of the High Court so as to be interfered with by this Court. The special leave petition is dismissed.
