Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Andhra University Parirakshana Joint ... vs Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Another on 31 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)ALD439, 1999(1)ALT366
ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J
1. This writ petition is referred to this Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 17-9-1997 to decide the question whether Section 18(2) and Section 18(6) of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 as amended under A.P. Act 13 of 1995 is valid under the provisions of the Constitution of India and whether the G.O. Ms. No.83, Education (UEI-I) Department, dated 18-3-1996 and the decisions taken after the issuance of the said G.O. are a nullity in the eye of law.
2. The impugned amendment to the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short 'the Act') mainly deals with the tenure of office of the Board of Management of the University and the quorum as it was existing prior to the amendment and subsequent to the amendment.
3. Prior to amendment, Section 18 (2) of the Act reads thus:
"Section 18(2): The term of the office of the nominated and elected members shall be three years from the date of constitution of Board of Management."
4. Section 18(2) of the Act as amended by the Act 13 of 1995 (for short the 'Amendment Act') reads as follows:
"Section 18(2) : A member of the Executive Council other than Ex-officio member shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor."
5. According to the amended provisions Class-I members of the Executive Council are Ex-Officio members which include the Vice-Chancel for, the Rector and nominees of the Government from Education Department, Finance and Planning Department and the Director of Higher Education/Commissioner of Collegiate Education. Class-II members include one Senior Professor, a Principal of the affiliated colleges, one teacher from among the Teachers of the affiliated Colleges and eminent persons representing Industry, Agriculture, Trade, Commerce, Education, Public Life, Legal Profession, Social Welfare elc. These Class-II members shall be nominated by the Government.
6. Section 18(6) of the amended Act provides quorum for a meeting of the Executive Council to be 1/3rd of the total number of members or six members, whichever is less, which means that the presence of all members irrespective of their category, subject to the quorum is mandatory. Prior to the amendment the Act provides that the requirement for quorum was 1/3rd of the total number of members of four members, whichever is less. By this amendment the nomenclature of the 'Board of Management' is renamed as 'Executive Council'.
7. The petitioner has filed this present writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation. The grounds on which he seeks to attack the amendment are that the impugned amendments have taken away the basic feature of the "autonomy" and frequent changes in the constitution of the Board of Management affects the autonomy of the University. Curtailing the power of tenure from three years to continue during the pleasure of the Governor has given uncontrolled powers to the Government to nominate those whom the Government likes and whenever the Government dislikes them to curtail the tenure.
8. There is no reasonable classification in classifying the Executive Council into two categories namely Class-I and Class-II. Preferential treatment has been given to Class-I members and the fate of Class-II members left to the whims and fancies of the Government.
9. Classification made between Class-I and Class-II and fixing the tenure of office, so also the quorum is not a reasonable classification. Thus, it has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Regarding quorum it is urged that earlier quorum was to be 1/3rd of the total number of members or a minimum of four. But by amendment the total strength of members of the Executive Council reduced. Further it deleted members of the category-III. By virtue of this amendment the members of Class-I can go ahead in conducting the meetings in the absence of Class-II members. Section 18(2) and (6) are violative of Section 7 of the Act. Because of the amended provisions, the Government committed mistake in nominating the persons to the category-II, though on the date of nomination they were not qualified. G.O. Ms. No.146, Education-UEI-I Department, dated 19-4-1995 and G.O. Ms. No.346 dated 15-9-1995 dealing about constituting of Executive Council and for the first time introducing doctrine of pleasure and restricted the term of Class-II members is arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unreasonable and defeats the very object of autonomy of the Universities and gives a go-bye to uphold the principle of democracy in conducting the affairs of the Management.
10. The case of the respondents is one of denial of the contentions raised by the petitioner. According to the respondents there is no irrationality in classification. Classification does not result in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Class-II Members are all officials and be nominated by virtue of their office. The petitioner has not shown how he is affected by the impugned amendment. The petition is not one to be treated as of public interest as no public interest is involved by the impugned amendment. The amendment has in any way affected the basic features of the autonomy of the University. The powers have been given to the different types of Ex-officio members of the Board of Management to discharge their duties effectively. Section 18(2) and (6) do not tend to interfere with the internal affairs of the institution.
11. The learned single Judge after going through the entire argument advanced by both the parties felt that the amendment on its face tend to curtail the autonomy in the University on the one hand and on the other has given, it was pointed out uncontrolled and unguided powers to the Government. Fixing the tenure of office as one during the pleasure of the Governor creates uncertainty in the minds of the members of the Board of Management to discharge their duties effectively and in the best interest of the University and students. The learned single Judge observing that any finding on the validity or otherwise of Section 18(2) and (6) of the Act may have far reaching effect in respect of the Universities in the State referred the matter for a decision of the Division Bench. Hence this writ petition before us.
12. The learned Counsel for both sides submitted their arguments almost on the basis of the grounds urged and referred to above.
13. The point for consideration is whether Section 18(2) and (6) as amended, has resulted in interfering with the democratic functioning of the Universities and thus deprived of its autonomy. Further, whether these two sub-sections are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
14. Power to amend a statute is not disputed. The dispute is only regarding its alleged arbitrariness and uncontrolled powers conferred on the authority in controlling the proceedings of the Board of Management.
15. It is the case of both the parties that the University and its activities shall be free from politics so that the education can be imparted more effectively and discipline among the students can be maintained.
16. Before dealing with the constitutional validity of the amended provisions of sub-sections (2) and (6) of Section 18 of the Act, it is necessary to refer to the objects and reasons of the Act, which read thus:
''At present there are six conventional Universities in the State, each governed by a separate enactment. These Universities arc the Andhra University and Nagarjuna University in the Andhra Area of the State, Sri Venkateswara University and Sri Krishnadevaraya University in the Kayalaseema Region, the Osmania University and the Kakatiya University in the Telangana area of the State. The provisions of the various Universities Acts governing the aforesaid Universities are substantially the same with minor variations here and there. Whenever there is a change in the policy of the Government and an amendment is to be affected, it is resulting in the amendment of all the six University Acts which is contributing to legislative duplication. Further if any new University is to be established with the same aims and objects, a separate enactment has to be passed. To maintain uniformity of taw in respect of all the conventional Universities and to easily establish any conventional University under the same enactment, the Government have decided to enact a single law in place of six University Acts and to bring all the aforesaid six Universities under new law.
Apart from the above aspect of uniformity in law, the Government have also decided to democratise the functioning of the University by providing for elected element in the Board of Management (earlier called as the Executive Council) and in the Academic Senate. It is also proposed to enlarge the membership of the Academic Senate by drawing persons having rich experience in various fields in order to mould the Academic Senate into a highly enlightened body.
17. Section 9 of the Act provides the officers of the University, they are the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the Rector, the Principal/Dean of the University College, the Registrar, the Finance Officers; and such other persons as the statutes may declare to be officers of the University.
18. What all we are concerned in this writ petition is whether the impugned amendments to Section 18(2) and (6) of the Act are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and whether the said amendment is against the public interest.
19. Prior to amendment to Section 18(2) and (6) the term of office of the nominated and elected members was three years from the date of constitution of Board of Management, but after coming into force of the impugned amendment the member of the Executive Council other than Ex-Officio member shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Sub-section (6) of Section 18 prior to the amendment provides that the quorum for a meeting of the Board of Management shall be 1/3rd of the total number of members or four persons, whichever is higher and the impugned amendment substituted the same to the effect that "the quorum for a meeting of the Executive Council shall be 1/3rd of the total number of members or six persons whichever is less."
20. The contention of the petition is that the impugned Section 18(2) of the Act as amended by Act 13 of 1995 gives differential treatment among nominated members and Ex-Officio members and also confers preferential treatment to the Ex-Officio members, that such classification has no nexus and there is nothing on record to show the object to be achieved by virtue of the classification, that Section 18 confers equal rights on all its members irrespective of their category and that providing an exception to the Ex-Officio members and leaving other members at the pleasure of the Governor is violativc of Article 14 of the Constitution. He also contends that amendment to Section 18(6) of the Act is aimed at conducting the proceedings of the Executive Council with Class-I Ex-Officio members even in the absence of Class-II members and without their nomination to the Executive Council leads to conferring arbitrary exercise of power of Class-I Ex-Officio members and therefore the same is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.
21. It should be borne in mind that the provisions of various Universities Acts in the State governing all the Universities are substantially the same with minor variations here and there. Whenever there is a change in the policy of the Government and an amendment is to be effected, which may result in amendment of all the six University Acts and thereby contributing legislative duplication. Further if any new University is to be established with the same aims and objects, it would necessarily lead to a separate enactment to be passed. Therefore the Government to maintain uniformity of law in respect of all the conventional Universities and to easily establish any conventional University under the same enactment thought it fit for enactment of a single law in place of six University Acts and to bring all the aforesaid six Universities under new law. The intention of the Government for amending the impugned provisions is to maintain uniformity in the law and to democratise the functioning of the University by providing for elected element in the Board of Management and in the Academic Senate. It is also to be borne in mind that since the Government had an idea for democratise the functioning of the University enlarged the membership of the Academic Senate by drawing persons having rich experience in various fields in order to mould the Academic Senate into a highly enlightened body, in that background the Government brought amendment to the Act by Act 13 of 1995 to enable the University to run the Executive Council with 1/3rd of the strength of the quorum or that 1/3rd members will he sufficient and that it was not correct if only Class-I were members present would be sufficient. Class-II members are all official members and by virtue of the office held by them, they become the members of the Executive Council. Since the State Government after verifying all particulars and after being satisfied about their contribution, eligibiliiy and other aspects made the nomination of Class-II members to the Executive Council, the same is neither illegal nor arbitrary. It is welt established principle that a challenge to constitutional validity of an Act or provision will be on the ground whether such a provision has resulted in inequality, stands to irrationality or not just and reasonable as to the object to be achieved. Mere differentiation or creating two classes is not sufficient to declare a provision as invalid. To show such a treatment as irrational the burden will be on the person who alleges it. Selection of differentiation can be held as illegal or unconstitutional if the same is unreasonable, unjust or arbitrary. In deciding the validity of a law the Court has to see whether the classification is founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. Such a differential treatment must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute.
22. Dealing with the similar question the Supreme Court relying upon its earlier decision observed in Venkateswara v. State of A.P., , as follows:
"It is well settled that if the classification is not palpably arbitrary law cannot be said as discriminative, if there is equality and uniformity within the group, though due to some fortuitous circumstances arising out of a peculiar situation some included in a class may get an advantage over others, but they are not singled out for special treatment."
23. The Supreme Court while interpreting the statutes to the U.P. Financial Corporation in U.P. Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gem Cap (India) Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 1435, held as follows:
"In a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, a writ Court has no say except in two situations: (1) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation, or (2) where the Corporation acts unfairly i.e., unreasonably. Acting unfairly or unreasonably does not mean that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can sit as an Appellate Authority over the acts and deeds of the Corporation and seek to correct them. That is not the function of the High Court under Article 226 Doctrine of fairness, evolved in administrative law was not supposed to convert the writ Courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities. The constraints-self-imposed undoubtedly- of writ jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to confusion and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may become rudderless."
24. By the impugned amendment to the Act the 'Board of Management' is renamed as 'Executive Council'. Class-I members of the Executive Council are distinct two groups. There is neither discrimination nor arbitrary classification. Among these two classes of members, Class-I members are official persons while Class-II are all those nominated by the Government. The impugned amendment is intended to subserve the interests of the University and to make its affairs more transparent and efficient.
25. In the matter of administrative action it is well known, more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities; they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. They have a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred. Only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have that action, the Court can interfere. Since there is no arbitrariness in the action of the Government, we are of the opinion, this Court cannot substitute any thing by its ruling. There is no unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the amendment made to the Act.
26. In Krishna Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala, , the Supreme Court observed thus:
"To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial if a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally material if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionally, Court should avoid embaring on uncharted ocean of public policy.
27. In the case on hand the policy of the Government and the objects and reasons of the Act are to enlarge the membership of the Academic Senate by drawing persons having rich experience in various fields in order to mould the Academic Senate into a highly enlightened body.
28. As staled supra Class-I members of the Executive Council are distinct two groups. There is neither discrimination nor arbitrary classification. Among these two classes of members, Class-I members are official persons while Class-II are all those nominated by the Government. The impugned amendment is intended to subserve the interests of the University and to make its affairs more transparent and efficient.
29. Therefore it cannot be said that the amendment brought to sub-section (2) of Section 18 and sub-section (6) of Section 18 of the Act by Act 13 of 1995 is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence as per the provisions of amendment Act 13 of 1995 even a member of the Executive Council shall hold office during the pleasure of Governor. Therefore termination of the term of the members under Clause-II other members which was done as per the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act as amended by issuing G.O. Ms. No.346, Education, dated 15-9-1995 cannot be said to be neither illegal nor arbitrary.
30. Therefore, in our view, the impugned amendment made by Act 13 of 1995 cannot be said to be unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the order in G.O. Ms. No.83, Education (UEI-1) Department dated 18-3-1996. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
31. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.