Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri Veer Vikrant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

Shri Arpan Pawar, learned counsel for the Director, Hitkarni Dental College and Hitkarni Sabha.

None for the respondent No.5.

Parties are heard on I.A. No.981/17 whereby the preliminary objection is raised by the employer about the maintainability of this petition.

Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in 2007. Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya granted him status of Reader in 2011 as per recommendations of a duly constituted committee under Clause 28 of the College Code. Thereafter, the petitioner became Professor. The main grievance of the petitioner is that without subjecting him to any disciplinary proceedings or without placing him under suspension, abruptly w.e.f. 01-12-2016, the respondents restrained the petitioner to put his signature on the attendance register. In addition, the petitioner was deprived by the institution to perform his lawful duties. Thus, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus to permit him to perform his duties.

Shri Dubey further submits that although the respondent- institution is an unaided private institution, it is discharging a public function being an educational institution. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by statutory provision of the College Code. The College Code prescribes the method by which an employee can be placed under suspension. It also provides the method regarding initiation and completion of disciplinary action. The respondents have not followed the statutory mandate of the College Code and orally issued directions pursuant to which the petitioner is deprived to perform his duties. By placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2015) 16 SCC 530 ( Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University & Ors.), it is urged that the respondents are imparting education in higher studies to the students at large and, therefore, they are discharging “public function”. Thus, they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that once statutory provision is infringed, the form or body of the institution does not make any difference. Reliance is placed on (1989) 2 SCC 691 (Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Surarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors.). He also placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in WP. No.13989/16 (Dr. Smt. Indu Thakur vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) wherein the termination order was set aside by this Court which was found to be in violation of Clause 28 of the College Code. Shri Dubey also placed reliance on the order passed in WP. No.12587/16 (R.S. Jaswal vs. State of M.P. & Ors.), it is urged that in the said case also the respondent-institution took similar objection about the maintainability of the petition. Despite the said objection, interim order is passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner therein.

Shri Veer Vikrant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Smt. Sonali Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State submit that the aspect of preliminary objection is between the petitioner and the respondent-institution and at this stage they do not want to argue on this aspect.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

This is not in dispute between the parties that service conditions of teachers of even an unaided institution admitted to the privilege of university are governed by College Code. The College Code prescribes the manner and method by which an employee can be placed under suspension. It further provides the methodology of taking disciplinary action against an employee. So far as the preliminary objection is concerned, the core issues are (i) whether the respondent-institution being an unaided private institution is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and (ii) whether the nature of dispute is such which can be subject matter of adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

As analyzed above, the preliminary objection raised by the employer cannot be upheld. The said objection is overruled.

With the consent, parties are heard on the question of interim relief.

Learned counsel for the institution is unable to rebut the contention of the petitioner that he can be deprived from his right to perform his duties only as per the procedure laid down in the College Code. There is no material/order on record which shows that the petitioner was deprived to perform his duties by passing any lawful order. In AIR 1959 SC 93 (Sri Baru Ram vs. Shrimati Prasanni & Ors.) and (2001) 4 SCC 9 (Dhanajaya Reddy vs. State of Karnataka), it was held that when a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden. This view is followed by this Court in 2011 (2) MPLJ 690 (Satyanjay Tripathi and Another Vs. Banarsi Devi). Hence, in my view, the action against the petitioner can be taken only in consonance with the statutory provision of College Code. In absence of showing any enabling provision by the institution to deprive the petitioner from his right to perform his duties, I am inclined to grant interim relief, as prayed for, to the petitioner.