Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. As far as the contention that respondent No. I-IIM is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is an undisputed position that in Special Civil Application No. 6845 of 1987 decided on October 24, 1991, a learned single Judge of this High Court (Coram: J.N. Bhatt, J.) has held that respondent No. I-IIM is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the said decision is challenged in Letters Patent Appeal before this High Court and it is pending. (Neither side has given the particulars of the L.P.A. but it is admitted by both the sides that the L.P.A. is still pending.) In view of this circumstance and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not express any opinion as to whether respondent No. I-IIM is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, the petition is capable of being decided even if this question is not examined and decided by us in this petition. Even the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed that this question should be decided in this petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the question as to whether respondent No. 1-IIM is 'State' or not is no decided, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable and it should be rejected. The contention cannot be accepted, la the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M. V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani , the Supreme Court has infer alia held that the words "any person or authority" occurring in Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. These words may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the persons or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed. If a positive obligation exists Mandamus cannot be denied. In view of (his position of law, what is to be seen is as to whether respondent No. 1-IIM is imposed with any positive obligation to the petitioner or not. Positive obligation of respondent No. 1-IIM to the petitioner flows from the provisions of G.U. Act. The provisions of G.U. Act and this question will be considered in further detail hereinafter. At this stage suffice it to state that the contention that respondent No. 1-IIM is not 'State' and therefore writ petition is not maintainable cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

10. In view of the aforesaid provision of law it is submitted that in this case the provisions of Section 51A of G.U. Act are attracted. It is an undisputed position that the petitioner was a confirmed employee of respondent No. 1-IIM. No inquiry whatsoever has been held against the petitioner nor has he been afforded an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order of termination of service. No approval of the Vice-Chancellor or any officer of the Gujarat University authorised by the Vice-Chancellor in that behalf has been obtained before or after passing the order of termination from service. In view of this position it is contended that even; if the order of termination of service is treated as an order of termination simpliciter, then also such action would contravene the provisions of Section 51A(2) of G.U. Act. Mere reading of the provisions of Section 51A makes it clear that even in cases of termination simpliciter the provisions of Section 51A(2) of G.U. Act are attracted. Section 51A of G.U. Act casts an obligation upon respondent No. 1-IIM to conduct its affairs as provided under the Act as far as the services of staff members of recognised or approved institutions are concerned. Since respondent No. 1-IIM is recognised as approved institution under the provisions of the G.U. Act it is duty bound to comply with the statutory requirements before taking any action against its staff members. Section 51A of G.U. Act casts an obligation upon the establishments mentioned therein to conduct their affairs as per the provisions made in the section. This provision casts obligation upon the Institution to hold inquiry against its staff member, if such staff member is to be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank on the ground of misconduct. Such employee should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of making representation. Even after the misconduct is held proved and it is decided to impose punishment of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank, the approval of the Vice-Chancellor or any Officer of the University authorised by the Vice-Chancellor is required to be obtained. This is the duty cast on the management of approved institutions to it's staff members. This is a public duty cast under the provisions of the statute. Again it may be noted that as per this very provision there could not be termination of service simpliciter of any such member of the staff, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed termination, and such termination is approved by the Vice-Chancellor or any officer of the University authorised by the Vice-Chancellor in that behalf. In this case no inquiry is held, no notice has been given to the petitioner; and he has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the alleged misconduct or against the proposed termination of service. The penalty of dismissal from service has not been approved by the Vice-Chancellor. Even if the termination of service is treated as termination simpliciter, then also it would be bad because approval of the Vice-Chancellor or any Officer of the University authorised by the Vice-Chancellor in that behalf has not been obtained. Moreover, no show-cause notice has been given to the petitioner against the proposed termination of service. Therefore, also, this would be in contravention of the provisions of Section 51A of G.U. Act.

12. By letter dated May 20, 1976 written by the Registrar, Gujarat University, addressed to the Administrative Officer of respondent No. 1-IIM, respondent No. 1-Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, has been recognised as approved institution of Gujarat University under Section 35A of the G.U. Act. This recognition as approved institution is for guiding Ph.D. students in the subjects of Management, Economics, Operation Research, Mathematics and Statistics, Psychology and Sociology. The Administrative Officer of respondent No. 1-IIM wrote letter to the Collector of Electricity Duty, Ahmedabad, on September 9, 1988 (produced at Annexure 'L' to the petition). By this letter the recognition letter issued by the Gujarat University has been forwarded to the Collector of Electricity Duty, requesting him to charge electricity duty at 40% (forty per cent). In view of this factual position it is evident that respondent No. 1-IIM is an approved institution under Section 35A of the G.U. Act. Section 51A of the G.U. Act has been reproduced hereinabove, which inter alia provides that the provisions would apply to the members of non-teaching staff also.