Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Of R.K. ... vs Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, ... on 2 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1987ALL188, AIR 1987 ALLAHABAD 188, 1987 ALL. L. J. 374, 1987 ALL. L. J. 377, (1987) UPLBEC 172, (1987) ALL WC 417, 1987 ED CAS 42, (1987) 13 ALL LR 240, 1987 ALL CJ 210, (1987) 55 FACLR 137, 1987 ALL CJ 237, (1987) ALL WC 363
Author: K. Jagannatha Shetty
Bench: K. Jagannatha Shetty
JUDGMENT K. Jagannatha Shetty, C.J.
1. A Division Bench of this Court while disagreeing with the decision in the Committee of Management of Janta Vedic College, Baraut, Meerut v. Vice Chancellor, Meerut University, AIR 1983 All 128, has referred the case for decision by a larger Bench.
2. The question that falls for consideration is whether the Vice-Chancellor, under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, ('Universities Act' for short), has got power to supersede the management of an affiliated college and appoint an Administrator. In the Janta Vedic College case a Division Bench of this Court has held that the Vice-Chancellor would be competent to exercise such power under Section 13(1) and (6), Universities Act. The question is whether that view requires reconsideration.
3. Petitioner 1 is a Committee of Management of R.K. College, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar. Petitioner 2 claims to be the Secretary of said college. The college has been administered by a society called Kisan Vidya Sabha. Shamli. The college has been affiliated to the Meerut University. On May 16, 1976, there was an election to the Committee of Management. That gave rise to a dispute which was ultimately brought before the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor without issuing notice to the management or to the elected persons appointed Sri Raj Singh as the Administrator of the College. The order was made on February 8, 1982 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13(1) and (6), Universities Act, read with Statute 13.05(f) of the Statutes.
The validity of the said order has been called into question in this writ petition preferred under Article 226.
4. Section 57 deals with the powers of the State Government. Section 58 confers power on the State Government to appoint Authorised Controller to take over the management. Sub-section (2) of Section 58 reads-
"58(2). Where the State Government while issuing a notice under Section 57 is of opinion, for reasons to be recorded, that immediate action is necessary in the interest of the College it may suspend the management, which shall thereupon cease to function, and make such arrangement as it thinks proper for managing the affairs of the College and its property till further proceedings are completed :
Provided that no such order shall remain in force for more than six months from the date of actual taking over the management in pursuance of such orders :
Provided further that in computation of the said period of six months, the time during which the operation of the order was suspended by any order of the High Court passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or any period during which the Management failed to show cause in pursuance of the notice under Section 57, shall be excluded."
Section 58(2) thus expressly confers power to supersede a-management on the State Government. The question herein is whether that power could as well be exercised by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(1) and (6).
5. For immediate reference, they are set out below ; --
"13. Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor-- (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall-
6. Where any matter is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with by any officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit and shall forthwith report the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also to the officer, authority, or other body who or which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter:
Provided that no such action shall be taken by the Vice-Chancellor without the previous approval of the Chancellor, if it would involve a deviation from the provisions of the Statutes or the Ordinances :
Provided further that if the officer, authority or other body is of opinion that such action ought not to have been taken it may refer the matter to the Chancellor who may either confirm the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor or annual the same or modify it in such manner, as he thinks fit and thereupon, it shall cease to have effect or, as the case may be, take effect in the modified form, so, however, that such annulment or modification shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done by or under the order of the Vice-Chancellor :
..............................."
Incidentally, we may refer to Statute 13.05(f) of the Statutes. It provides that if any question relating to the management of the College arises as to whether any person has been duly chosen as, or is entitled to be a member or office bearer of the Management or whether the Management is legally constituted, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor shall be final.
Section 13(1) and (6) preserves power to the Vice-Chancellor to deal with the urgent circumstances requiring an immediate action which action could not be immediately considered by any officer, or the authority, or other body of the University empowered by or under the Universities Act. The Vice-Chancellor could take such immediate action and intimate the same to the Chancellor and also to the concerned officer, or authority, or other body of the University who are otherwise competent to take such action in the ordinary course.
6. We must now examine whether any officer, the authority or other body of the University is competent to supersede the management of a College and appoint an administrator to manage the affairs thereof.
Officers of the University have been specified under Sec. 9. They are (a) the Chancellor; (b) ... the Pro-Chancellor; (c) the Vice-Chancellor; (d) ... the Pro-Vice-Chancellor; (e) the Finance Officer; (f) the. Registrar; (g) the Deans of the Faculties; (h) the Dean of Students Welfare.
Section 15 provides for the appointment and duties of the Finance Officer.
Section 16 deals with the appointment and powers of the Registrar.
Section 18 provides that the powers of officers other than the Chancellor the Pro-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the Finance Officer and the Registrar shall be such as may be laid down by the Statutes and the Ordinances.
We do not find any power conferred upon these officers to supersede the management of and appoint an administrator to the affiliated college.
7. Let us now turn the Authorities of the University.
Section 19 enumerates the authorities of the University. They are -- (a) the Executive, Council; (b) the Court; (c) the Academic Council; (d) the Finance Committee; (e) the Boards of Faculties; etc. Section 20 provides for constitution of the Executive Council. Section 21 states that the Executive Council shall be the principal executive body of the University with an authority to exercise the powers set out therein. Likewise Section 25 states that the academic council shall be the principal academic body of the University. It also deals with its powers. Section 26 deals with the Finance Committee and its powers. Section 27 provides for the constitution and powers of the faculties.
Section 22 provides for the constitution of the Court and Section 23 deals with the powers and duties.
Here again, we do not find any provision conferring power on these authorities or bodies to appoint an administrator to manage the affairs of the affiliated college.
8. The power conferred upon the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(6) is the power which could be exercised by an officer, authority or other body of the University. In the normal course when such officer, authority or body could not immediately deal with the situation or not available to deal with the matter, there should not be any crisis in the administration. To meet such contingency the power has been preserved to the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(6).
9. The decision of this Court in the Janta Vedic College case, (AIR 1983 All 128) appears to have overlooked this aspect. It was observed :
"It is true that Sections 57 and 58 lay down a procedure for appointment of authorised Controller and authorise the State Government to make an appointment in cases where it records a satisfaction and finds conditions mentioned in these two provisions to be in existence, but the said power was that of the State Government. Moreover, from its very nature the power is such which is likely to consume time.
Hence merely because of the power given to the State Government the submission of the petitioners' counsel that the Vice-Chancellor could not appoint an Administrator under Section 13(6) is not tenable. Power under Section 13 is available to be exercised by the Vice-Chancellor, only in urgent cases where immediate action is required to be taken. The two powers, one conferred on the State Government and the other conferred on the Vice-Chancellor, are not competing with each other. There is nothing in the Act indirectly prohibiting the Vice-chancellor from making an appointment of Administrator to meet the exigency of situation."
With great respect, we are unable to share the view expressed therein. We have seen that the Universities Act does not confer power to supersede the management of a college on any officer, authority or other body of the University. If an officer, authority or other body of the University itself has no power to supersede the management of a college and appoint an Administrator, we fail to understand how the Vice-Chancellor could exercise such power by calling into assistance the emergency power conferred upon him under Section 13(6). The Vice-Chancellor is statutory authority. His powers must be located within the scope of the Universities Act. He has no jurisdiction to exercise any power which has not been expressly or impliedly conferred upon him.
10. Section 58(2) is self contained and comprehensive enough to meet any emergency situation. It authorises the State Government to take immediate action, if found necessary. The State Government could suspend the management and make such arrangement as it thinks proper to manage the affairs and property of the college. The order to be made is interim in nature. It cannot survive for more than six months from the date of actual taking over the management. The Vice-Chancellor cannot exercise this power, under Section 13(6), since the State Government is not an officer, authority or other body of the University. The decision of this Court in Janta Vedic College case cannot, therefore, be said to have laid down the correct law and it is overruled.
In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated February 8, 1982 (Annexure 4). In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs.