AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.B.N. Singh C.J.
These writ petitions and the writ appeal raise common questions relating to the College Committee of Sir Theagaraya College, Madras, and by
consent of parties they are taken up together and are disposed of by a common order.
The writ appeal is against an interlocutory order passed in one of the writ petitions, namely Writ Petition No. 3657 of 1983.
In Writ Petition No. 3657 of 1983 the sole Petitioner, who is a Professor m the College, has prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing Sir
Theagaraya Chetty Educational Institutions, to constitute a College Committee in accordance with Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges
(Regulation) Act, 1976, read with Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Rules, 1976.
Writ Petition No. 5801 of 1983 is by four Members of the College Committee praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order directing the fourth Respondent namely the Director of Collegiate Education, to constitute and call for a meeting of the
College Committee as per Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976.
Writ Petition No. 3049 of 1983 is by Prof. T.K. Sudhindra''n who has prayed for a writ of certiorarifled mandamus for quashing the resolution
dated 27th January 1983 of the College Committee reinstating Dr. G. Madan Mohan Rao as Principal of the College as also order dated 30th
March 1983 allowing Dr. G. Madan Mohan Rao to assume Office as Principal of the College and reverting the Petitioner as Professor.
It would be appropriate to deal first with Writ Petition No. 3657 of 1983 and mention some of the facts which will be common to all the three
writ petitions and refer only to the relevant facts while dealing with the other writ petitions. Mrs. Neela Radhakrishnan the Petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 3657 of 1983 is a Professor in Sir Theagaraya College Washermenpet Madras. She has stated in her affidavit that the third Respondent in the
writ petition Sir Theagaraya Chetty Educational Institutions is an educational agency within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private
Colleges (Regulation) Act XIX of 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity and that the said Sir Theagaraya Educational
Institutions hereinafter referred to as the educational agency for the sake of brevity is governed by the provisions of the said Act. According to the
Petitioner Section 11 of the Act lays down that a private college like the one administered by the Educational Agency shall have a College
Committee which shall include the Principal and two senior Professors employed in the College. Section 14 requires subject to the provisions of
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder the College Committee to carry on the general administration of the College excluding properties and
funds. It shall also appoint teachers and define their duties and conditions of service to take disciplinary action against the teachers and other
persons of the College. It is provided in the Act that any decision taken by the College Committee in respect of any matter over which it has
jurisdiction is deemed to have been taken by the educational agency. It further provides that the educational agency is bound by anything done by
the College Committee. According to the Petitioner Rule 8(3) of the Rules lays down that the College Committee shall consist of (a)
representatives of the educational agency (third Respondent) (b) the Principal of the College (c) two senior most Professors and (d) the University
representative. It is also averred by the Petitioner that by judgment dated 11th November 1981 in Second Appeal No. 1184 of 1981 the High
Court has held that seniority of the Professors under Rule 8(3) would be only the service rendered in the particular category that is to say as
Professor and not total length of service rendered by the Professor in different capacities such as Lecturer and so on.
In paragraph 5 of the affidavit it is stated that the educational agency third (Respondent) at the meeting of its Managing Committee held on 7th
July 1976, resolved on to constitute a College Committee as per the provisions of the Act in which two of the senior most Professors of the
College one of whom is the Petitioner were included. In the year 1981-82 Mr. K.N. Parthasarathy who was upgraded as Professor in 1980 was
nominated to the College Committee along with Mr. B. Chengalvarayan in the place meant for two senior most Professors while in 1982-83 Mr.
U.K. Menon and Mr. P. Natarajan were nominated of whom Mr. Menon was a senior most Professor while Mr. Natarajan was upgraded as a
Professor only from 1980 and the is in the same Department as the Petitioner and is Junior to the Petitioner. On 27th January 1983 in the place of
Mr. U.K. Menon one Mr. V.R. Kanniah another Professor who was upgraded as Professor in 1980 was nominated to the College Committee.
This happened as Mr. U.K. Menon was informed that he was not eligible to be nominated as a Member of the College Committee because the
total length of service had to be taken into consideration and taking that fact into consideration be was not senior to Mr. Kanniah and Mr. Menon
agreed to step down. According to the Petitioner on his misleading representation the proceedings of the College Committee were transacted
without any one of the senior most Professors entitled to be in the College Committee as per Section 11 of the Act and Rule 8(3)(c) of the Rules.
The other grievance of the Petitioner is that there is no nominee of the University which is a mandatory requirement of Rule 8(3)(d) of the Rules.
According to the Petitioner the non-inclusion of another senior most Professor namely Mr. Menon rendered the constitution of the College
Committee illegal.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the educational agency Respondent No. 3 and its Secretary, Respondent No. 4. It is stated in the
counter affidavit that the Board of Trustees of Sir Theagaraya Chetty Educational Institutions has been constituted under a scheme framed by the
Supreme Court of India in SLP Nos. 811 and 812 of 1975 and the Board of Trustees consists of 11 members and 2 ex-office members as
follows:
2 Members�representing the family of the Donors
1 Member� to be elected by Teachers of the College.
1 Member� to be elected by the Teachers of the High School.
3 Members� to be elected by Graduates of the College.
2 Members� to be co opted by the Board of Trustees.
1 Member� Principal of the College (ex-office).
1 Member� Headmaster of the High School (ex-office).
It is stated in the counter affidavit that of the aforesaid members of the Educational Institution he Senate of the University has not chosen to
nominate its Members. Today the Board of Trustees consists of 11 members. It is further stated that it is the Board of Trustees which is the
Educational Agency within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Act. The College Committee u/s 2(2) read with Section 11 of the Act consists of all
the eleven members of the Board of Trustees as representatives of the Educational Agency under Rule 8(3)(a). Since the Principal of the College is
already a Member of the Board of Trustees, Rule 8(3)(b) is also satisfied. Apart from the above, two senior most professors of the College are
also Members of the College Committee under Rule 8(3)(c). Though, the University has not nominated any Member under Rule 8(3)(d), the
College additional Committee functioning today consists of 13 Members and is a duly constituted body.
It is stated in the counter affidavit that Mr. Kalahasti (Petitioner No. 1) in Writ Petition No. 5801 of 1983 was the Secretary of the Educational
Agency and of the College Committee in 1976-77; Mr. M. Mohan in the year 1977-78, Mr. M. Venkataranga Rao in 1978-79; again Mr.
Kalabasti in 1979 and continued till August, 1980. Mr. P. Rajasekaran from August 1980 till May, 1981, and Mr. Kalabasti once again from
June, 1981 till 13th December, 1982. Respondent No. 4 became Secretary of the Educational Agency and the College Committee only from 13th
December, 1982. It was submitted that Respondent No 4 or for that matter Mr. V.M.G. Rama Kannan, were not responsible for the constitution
and re-constitution of the College Committee until March, 1979. It was some of the Members of the Board of Trustees, who were no questioning
the validity of the composition of the College Committee, were themselves responsible for constituting the College Committee from 7th July, 1976
to 31st March, 1979 and it is they who applied the principle of seniority on the basis of total length of service. This principle, no doubt, gave rise to
claims and counter claims. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that the objection of Mr. V.R. Kanniah that total length of service should be
taken into account, was placed by Mr. T.K. Sadhindran, who was then the Principal, for consideration. Mr. Menon stepped down and Mr.
Kanniah became the Member as the records showed that he was the senior most Professor, taking the total length of service, in December 1982.
It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the meeting of the College Committee held on 27th January, 1983 was attended by all the 13 Members
including Mr. Natarajan and Mr. Kannah, the two Professors, and nobody took any objection to the composition of the Committee or to their
participation in the meeting.
It is submitted in the counter affidavit that Respondent No. 4 became the Secretary on 13th December, 1982, a fret which has not been
controversed, and same of the Lecturers, who were earlier Secretaries, namely, Mr. Kalahasti in 1976-77, have been availing the total length of
service for selecting the two senior Professors of the Committee. A doubt had arisen, after the judgment in Second Appeal No. 1184 of 1981, as
to what should be the criteria for selection whether it is the total period of service or service only in the category of Professor. A clarification had
been sought in this regard from the Director of Collegiate Education by letter, dated 10th June, 1983 and it is submitted that the said decision in
Second Appeal No. 1184 of 1981 requires reconsideration.
We have set out the facts stated in the affidavit and counter affidavit in some detail, as these facts will form the background of the submissions
made before us not only in this writ petition but in the other writ petitions as well.
Mr. Kumaramangalam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has submitted that there is no duly constituted College
Committee for the College in question and that it is really the Managing Committee of the Educational Agency which is functioning in the place of
the College Committee which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The ground of attack is based on the following facts:
(i) Two senior most Professors are not there in the College Committee.
(ii) Under the scheme for the Educational Agency there is provision for the election of the President and Secretary annually and they have to be
President and Secretary of the College Committee, which has not been done, and the Old Secretary canters.
(iii) There is no University nominee on the College Committee as required by the Rules.
(iv) There is no proper Principal of the College in the College Committee, as there is litigation regarding the resolution of the College Committee,
dated 27th January, 1983 re-calling the order of dismissal of Dr. Madan Mohan Rao and reinstating him as Principal of the College.
Taking up the points in the order mentioned by us, the grievance of the Petitioner is that Section 11 of the Act, read with Rule 8(3)(c) of the
Rules, requires that two senior, most Professors will be on the College Committee. But, according to the Petitioner, who is one of the senior most
Professors the Petitioner has not been nominated a moving the two senior, most Professors on the College Committee. The learned Counsel has
submitted that the Educational Agency is not taking into account the tenure of Professor as a Professor for finding out as to who is the senior most
Professor, bit is taking into account the entire length of service for the purpose, which is not correct. Reliance in this regard is placed on the
unreported decision of a learned single Judge of this Court m Second Appeal No. 1184 of 1981. Mr. Kumaramangalam has submitted that, so far
as the Petitioner is concerned, she satisfies either of the tests prescribed, namely, if service in the cadre of Professor is taken into account or if the
total service is taken into account. This fact is not disputed by Mr. Chidambaram, learned Counsel on behalf of the third Respondent. It is
conceded that the Petitioner''s case is unassailable for being nominated in the College Committee. Had this been the only point of controversy
before us, as to whether the Petitioner could be nominated as one of the two senior most Professors or not, this writ petition could have been
disposed of on the concession made on behalf of the third Respondent. But it raises the question of interpretation of Section 11 of the Act read
with Rule 8(3)(c) of the Rules, as to the two senior most Professors to be nominated to the College Committee. This question may arise in future
also. Apart from that the correctness of the judgment in Second Appeal No. 1184 of 1981 has been questioned, and it is on this account that the
matter is before us.
As already stated the Petitioner, in assertion of her bonafides has referred to the fact that some of the Petitioners in these writ petitions were
themselves adopting the total length of service for nominating the two senior Professors to the College Committee and when the said decision in
Second Appeal No. 1184 of 1981 had been given by the High Court the third Respondent addressed a letter to the Director of Collegiate
Education, dated 10th June, 1983 for clarification in the matter. Section 11 of the Act deals with the constitution of the College Committee and
reads as follows:
Every private college not being a minority college, shall have a College Committee which shall include the Principal of the private college and two
senior Professors employed in the private college.
Thus Section 11 requires that there should be a College-Committee and this should be inclusive of the Principal and two senior Professors. Rule 8
of the Rules provides for the constitution of the College Committee and it reads as follows:
8 (1) The Educational Agency of every College other than minority college, shall constitute a Committee.
(2) The term of office of the members of the Committee shall be three years. Members of the Committee shall be eligible for re-nomination.
(3) The Committee shall consists of:
(a) representatives of the educational agency, who shall be nominated by such educational agency:
Provided that no employee of the college shall be nominated under this category.
(b) Principal of the College;
(c) two senior most Professors.
Explanation (1) In case where there is only one Professor that Professor and one seniormost Assistant Professor/Lecturer and where there is no
Professor two seniormost Assistant professors/lecturers shall be in the Committee.
Explanation (2) For purposes of this Rule the seniority shall be determined with reference to the total service rendered by the Professors/Assistant
Professors/Lecturers in any College or Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu.
(d) one member nominated by the University concerned.
(4) When a vacancy in category (c) in sub Rule (3) arises the next senior most Professor or Assistant professor/lecturers as the case may be shall
be nominated to the Committee.
(5) The Educational Agency shall nominate one of its representatives in the Committee as the President.
(6) (Omitted)
From the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules, it is clear that it is the Educational Agency which should constitute the College
Committee and that the term of the members of the Committee Will be three years and the members could be renominated. The College
Committee shall consist of the recreative of the Educational Agency. It is an undisputed fact before us that 11 of the members of the Board of
Trustees of the Educational Agency are ex office members of the College Committee. It is also ex-officio a member of the Committee, as required
under the Act, as also the Principal is ex-office Member of the Managing Committee of the Educational Agency. The dispute here is regarding the
nomination of the Professors. Mr. Chidambaram has submitted that Section 11 provides that two senior professors will be nominated to the
College Committee while Rule 8(3)(c) says that two seniormost Professors should be nominated, and the said Rule is ultra vires the role making
power, it being inconsistent with Section 11 of the Act.
Mr. Kumramangalam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand, had submitted that Clause (c) of Rule 8(3) is not ultra vires, and
that the prescription of two senior most Professors is only for the purpose of clarification and illustration of what was latent in Section 11 of the
Act. We do not find any substance in this contention of learned Counsel. The Legislature has clearly provided that two senior Professors should be
nominated on the College Committee. Nothing prevented the Legislature from saying two senior most Professors should be nominated to the
College Committee. The Rule providing for two senior most Professors is, therefore, in excess of the Rule making power, and it is not incidental to
or by way of clarification of the main provision of the Act. It should accordingly be read down to mean two senior Professors as mentioned in
Section 11 of the Act. Similarly, when the Act prescribes that two senior Professors shall be members of the College Committee, Explanation (1)
to Rule 8(3)(c) provides that even Assistant Professors and Lecturers can be nominated as members to the College Committee which the Act says
that the nominee of the College should be two senior Professors, it was not open to the Rule making authority to say that it would also include
Assistant Professors and Lecturers. The expression Professor has not been defined in the Act to include within its ambit Assistant Professors or
Lecturers as well, nor has it been used in the generic sense. In fairness to the Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, it should be mentioned that no
such argument has teen advanced before us. What has been defined in the Act is only Teachers winch included within its ambit Professors,
Assistant Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Demonstrators, etc. The difference, therefore in category among the college teachers has been expressly
recognized in the Act itself.
Rule 8(3)(c) is therefore clearly ultra vires the Rule making power. It may be that there is a lacuna in the Act as some of the private colleges
may have only one Professor no Professor and in such cases there may not be any representation of the member of the state on the College
Committee which the Act intend to ensure. The lacuna in the Act can only be got over by appropriate legislation and not by incorporating such
provisions in the Rules. The Act has not delegated any such power to the Rule making body u/s 53 of the Act nor can stick power be said to be
incidental to the Rule making power. Explanation (1) to Rule 8(3)(c) has therefore to be held to be ultra vires the Rule making power.
For the same reason Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 which provides that when a vacancy in category (c) in sub Rule (3) arises the next senior most
Professor or Assistant Professor/Lecture as the case may be/shall be nominate must also be held to be ultra vires the Rule making power.
After Explanation (1) has been held to be ultra vies then what remains in the provision is the lone Explanation (2) which has already been
extracted. This Explanation provides that for the purpose of Rule 8 the seniority shall be determined With reference to the total service rendered by
the Professors/Assistant Professors, Lecturers in any College or Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. If this Explanation is to be sustained then the
only meaning that could be given to it is that in order to find out as to who is the senior Professor the total service rendered in different capacities
by the said Professor be it as Assistant Professor or Lecturer in one college or different colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu has to be taken into
account. This interpretation has to be accepted inasmuch as any other interpretation will make it vulnerable to the main provision of the Act. The
Rule could very well provide in prescribing what should be the basis of locating the two senior Professors is of the College to take into account the
total length of service of Professor rendered in different capacities as wealth of experience gained will be a relevant consideration for finding out the
seniority of a Professor.
It will be necessary at this stage to refer to the judgment of Mohan, J. in Second Appeal No. 1184 of 1981 dated 11th November 1981 in
that case the learned Judge was concerned with a situation where there was a Professor and an Additional Professor and the question was whether
the period of service as Additional Professor could be taken into account for determining the seniority between the two Professors the learned
Judge came to the conclusion that service in the cadre of Professor alone could be taken into account. But to be fair to the learned Judge he has
expressly stated.
I do not think that I need decide the larger question whether the Rule goes beyond what is contemplated under the section and therefore the
delegated authority has exceeded the power and consequently the Rule is ultra vires
The learned Judge has further observed:
For the purpose of the discussion I will take it that when Sub-Rule 8(3)(c) speaks of two senior most Professors that does not infringe in any way
what is contained u/s 11. In other words it merely explains Section 11. This is the basis on which I propose to proceed.
As already held by us Rule 8(3)(c) has to be read down to mean two senior Professors. Once Explanation (1) to Rule 8(3)(e) is held to be
ulna vires Section 11 of the Act, Explanation (2) which remains the only Explanation to the Rule comes into play and it provides for the
computation of the total length of service for locating the two, senior Professors to be in the College Committee. With respect therefore we hold
that the decision in Second Appeal No. 1184 of 1981 has not been correctly rendered so far as it lays down that only cadre seniority in the
particular category should be taken into account for determining who will.
Mr. Kmmaramaugalam has next submitted that according to the scheme sanctioned for the Educational Agency provision is made for the
election of the President an Secretary annually. The said provision reads as follows:
Election of President and Secretary:
The Board of Trustees shall, every year, in the month of March, from among them elect a President and a Secretary and Correspondent of their
Board and such President and Secretary shall hold office from the 1st April of each year till the 31st March of the succeeding year and they shall
be eligible for re-election.
He has further submitted that Rule 9(3) of the Rules lay down that:
The Secretary shall function for and on behalf of the Committee and the Educational Agency-
Therefore learned Counsel submits that the same person has to be the Secretary for the Managing Committee of the Educational Agency as well as
for the College Committee of the College. There is no substance in this contention of the learned Counsel. Firstly the above scheme of annual
election is for the purpose of the Educational Agency and it is an admitted position before us that so far as provision has been made in the Act and
the Rules, that will superseded any arrangement made in the sanctioned scheme. Section 52 of the Act which is very clear on the point may be
reproduced:
Overriding effect of this Act; The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for
the time being in force including any regulation or statute of any University.
The provision of Rule 9 itself which is the relevant Rule is also against this contention of Mr. Kumaramangalam. Clause (3) of Rule 9 has to be
interpreted m the background of the other provisions in the Rule on the settled principles of Construction
Secretary of the Committee:
and not read in isolation. Clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 9 may be quoted:
(1) The Educational Agency shall nominate one of its representatives as Secretary of the Committee. Provided that it shall be open to the
Educational Agency to nominate the Principal as Secretary of the Committee.
(2) the term of office of the Secretary shall ordinarily be three years. However, he shall be eligible for re-nomination for subsequent terms. If the
Educational Agency intends to change the Secretary within the period of three years, it shall do so only with the prior approval of the Director.
Application for approval of change in the Secretary ship shall be made to the Director in Form 6.
It is therefore apparent that Rule 9 provides that the tenure of the Secretary will be for a period of three years, which is quire different from that
of the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Educational Agency, and, therefore the argument of Mr. Kumaramangalam, that the Secretary
of the College Committee has to be the same person as the Secretary of the Managing Committee and his tenure will be for one year is contrary to
the provisions of the Act.
A reference to Section 14 of the Act Will give the true meaning in what sense the Secretary of the College Committee will function on behalf of
the Managing Committee, as provided in Rule 9(3). Section 14 of the Act deals with the functions of the College Committee and responsibility of
the Educational Agency Under the Act, It reads:
14(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder the College Committee shall have the following functions namely:
(a) to marry on the general administration of the private college excluding the properties end funds of the privates college:
(b) to appoint teachers and other persons, of the private college, fix their pay and allowances and define their duties and the conditions of their
service: and
(c) to take disciplinary action against teachers and other persons of the private college.
(2) The educational agency shall be bound by anything done by the College Committee in the discharge of the functions of that Committee under
this Act.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, any decision or action taken by the College Committee in respect of any matter over which the College
Committee has jurisdiction shall be deemed to be the decision or action taken by the Educational Agency. From the provisions of Sub-sections (2)
and (3) of Section 14 it is apparent that the Educational Agency is bound by anything done by the College Committee in discharge of its legitimate
functions, and any decision or action taken by the College Committee in respect of any matter will be deemed to be the decision or action taken by
the Educational Agency. It is in this regard that the Secretary is meant to function for and on behalf of the educational agency and his tenure has to
be for a period of three years, according to the Rules, and not for one year as contended by Mr. Kumaramangalam.
It has already been stated that the present Secretary, Respondent No. 4. has been nominated only on 13tb December 1962 and has been in
office for a period of less than one year. This fact has not been controverted by the Petitioner.
As for the appointment of the President, Rule 8(5) provides that the Educational Agency has to nominate one of its representatives as the
President, and has term of office will ordinarily be the same as that of any member of the Committee, Vide Rule 8(2). Thus, this contention of the
learned Counsel, has there has to be an annual nomination of the President, also it without any substance.
The third contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there is no University nominee and, therefore, there is no properly
constituted Committee. We have already pointed out that the College Committee had written to the University to nominate their nominee, but so
far the University has not chosen to nominate its nominee, and the duty to nominate its nominee lies with the University. The prayer in the writ
petition is for the issue of a direction to Respondent No. 3, the Educational Agency, to constitute the College Committee in accordance with the
Act and the Rules. The University has not been impleaded and no direction has been sought against the University to nominate such nominee.
However, the absence of the University nominee will not make the College Committee a honest body.
Lastly it is submitted that there is no validly appointed Principal in the college and the litigation in that regard is pending in the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 it is stated as follows:
Consequent upon the views expressed by a Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court while hearing Writ Appeal No. 553 of 1978, and on the advice
of the then legal adviser, at its meeting held on 27th January, 1983 the College Committee resolved to reinstate Dr. Madan Mohan as Principal.
Subsequently Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1978 was allowed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 24th February, 1983.
...Ever since the resolution to reinstate� Dr. Madan Mohan Rao was adopted on 27th January 1983, Professor Sri T.K. Sudhindran has
become an aggrieved party and, as it appears from the subsequent developments, he has the support of the four dissenting members of the
Educational Agency and of the College Committee. It is the grievance of Professor. T.K. Sudbindran which has given rise to the legal proceedings
instituted against the Educational Agency, the College Committee and me.
From the above averments it is apparent that Dr. Madan Mohan Rao has been reinstated as Principal. This aspect of the case will be dealt with
later when dealing with Writ Petition No. 3040 of 1983 filed by Professor T.K. Sudhindran.
Thus it will be apparent that there is no substance in any of the four grounds on which the College Committee is said to be not duly constituted,
as contended by Mr. Kumararnangalam The provisions of the Act and the Rules do not lay down that if the University does not choose to
nominate its representative, the College Committee will be considered to be a honest body. The same principle will apply, if one of the two senior
Professors, has not been nominated, because of confusion in the interpretation of the Rules, and a reference being made to the Director of
Collegiate Education in this regard. We have already pointed out that there are 11 permanent representatives of the Educational Agency on the
Managing Committee, which includes the Principal also. Section 13 of the Act provides for the meetings of the College Committee. Sub-section
(1) of Section 13 lays down that the College Committee shall meet at such times and places and shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2)
and (3), observe such Rules of procedure in regard to transaction of business at its meetings (including the quorum at the meetings) and that the
College Committee shall meet at least once in every three months. Sub-section (2) provides that the President of the College Committee or in his
absence, any member chosen by the members present, shall preside at the meeting of the College Committee. Sub-section (3) lays down that all
questions shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present and voting. The Rule relevant for our purpose is Clause (b) of Rule
10(3), which says that fifty per cent of the total number of numbers of the committee will be the quorum.
There is therefore nothing in the Rules to suggest that the Committee remains a non-est body till the University nominee is brought into it. Any
such construction would frustrate the working of the College Committee by delay and default on the part of the University, as in the instant case, by
not nominating its representative or by any incidental vacancy on account of a question of interpretation as in the case of senior Professor.
We accordingly direct that, while nominating the two senior Professors Respondent No. 3 will take into consideration the entire length of
service of the person concerned and proceed to fill up the vacancy in accordance therewith, and in that the legitimate claim of the Petitioner herein
will be duly considered by the Educational Agency. This writ petition is allowed to the limited extent indicated above.
Writ Petition No. 5801 of 1983 has been filed by G. Kalahasti, M. Ramadoss, C. Sivasankar and B. Bhoopal, four members of the College
Committee, with a prayer to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the fourth Respondent the
Director of Collegiate Education, to constitute and call for a meeting of the College Committee of Sir Theagaraya College, as per Rule of the Tamil
Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976.
We have already discussed the Rules from which it is apparent that the Director of Collegiate Education, Respondent No. 4, has no part to
play in the constitution of the College Committee. The Educational Agency, which has the principal hand in the matter, is not a party to this writ
petition. The other persons who are parties are Respondent No. 1, The President of the College Committee, Respondent No. 2, the Secretary of
the College Committee and Respondent No. 3 Mr. V.R. Kanniah Professor of Philosophy in the College and a Professor/Member of the College
Committee.
From the averments in the writ petition it appears that the grievance of these Petitioners is against the reinstatement of Dr. Madan Mohan Rao
as Principal, about which of course there is no prayer in the writ petition. From the letters produced before us, it appears that these four Petitioners
objected to the reinstatement of Dr. Madan Mohan Rao, but at no stage do they seem to have ever objected to the constitution of the College
Committee in any of its meetings, on the other hand, they participated in such meetings.
Mr. Pal Pandian has urged before us that P. Jothi, Secretary of the College Committee, ceased to hold office on 30th January 1983, and is still
acting as the Secretary. This submission of the learned Counsel is factually incorrect, inasmuch as it has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed on
behalf of the Secretary that he has been nominated as Secretary on 13tb December 1982, which has not been controversed.
There is no substance in the contention of Mr. Pal Pandian that the term of office of the Secretary will be one year inasmuch as the term of
office of the Secretary, as already held by us, is to be three years, under Rule 9(2) of the Rules. This submission of Mr. Pal Pandian is not
sustainable on two grounds. Firstly, there is no averment in the affidavit in support of the argument advanced on this point, and even otherwise, no
relief could be granted to the Petitioners, in the absence of the Educational Agency as a party to the writ petition, who has power to nominate the
Secretary under Rule 9(1) of the Rules.
For the same reason, the legality or otherwise of the nomination of Professor V.R. Kanniah as Senior Professor cannot be gene into in the
absence of the Educational Agency. Realising these difficulties, Mr. Pal Pandian ultimately confined his submission that the fresh notice dated 24th
January 1983 by Respondent No. 2, calling for the meeting of the College Committee on 27th January 1983 was without giving the requisite
statutory notice of seven days, as required Under Rule 10(3)(a) of the Rules and that the said notice was invalid, and therefore the order of
reinstatement of Dr. Madan Mohan Rao, who was dismissed on 7th May 1976, is invalid. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents a
Photostat copy of the proceedings dated 27th January 1983 has been filed, from which it appears that these Petitioners participated in the meeting,
and took no objection that the meeting was invalid and not properly called, as there was no statutory notice of seven clear days but only gave their
note of dissent to the reinstatement of Dr. Madan Mohan Rao as Principal. Having participated, in the meeting, the participants must be deemed to
have waived the requirement as to seven days time in giving the notice, even if the allegation of the Petitioners were correct that there was no clear
seven days notice.
In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. W.P. Petition No. 3049 of 1983�In this Writ Petition K.
Sudhindran has prayed for quashing the proceedings of the College Committee dated 27th January 1983 by which Dr. Madan Mohan Rao, who
was earlier dismissed by the College Committee, was reinstated as Principal. The Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ to quash the order dated 30th March 1983 of Respondent No. 1 allowing Dr. Madan Mohan Rao to assume Office of the
Principal of the College.
The Petitioner, in his affidavit, has stated that on the 7th May 1976, the Principal of the College Dr. Madan Mohan Rao was dismissed from
the post of Principal by the College Committee and one Mr. M. Rajamaickam was appointed Principal incharge, and the Petitioner was appointed
Vice Principal with effect from 7th May 1976 by the College Committee. On the retirement on 1st June 1977 of Mr. Rajamanickam the Petitioner
was promoted as Principal of the Day and Evening Colleges of Six Theagaraya College and confirmed on 3rd June 1978 with effect from 1st June
1978.
The Petitioner''s case is that Dr. Rao filed an appeal before the Government against the order of dismissal, which was dismissed by the
Government and against which Writ Petition No. 2613 of 1977 was filed, which was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court holding
that Section 15 of the Act would not apply. It is an admitted position before us that against the said order Dr. Rao filed a writ appeal in Writ
Appeal No. 535 of 1978, which was allowed and the order of the learned single Judge, and also of the Government tie appellate authority, were
set aside and the mailer was remanded to the Government for disposal of the appeal according to law.
The contention of the Petitioner is that the mere remand of the appeal of Dr. Rao to the Government (Appellate Authority) for disposal
according to law has not the effect of putting an end to the order or dismissal of Dr. Rao dated 7th May 1976 and the College Committee illegally
included in the agenda for the meeting held on 27th January l983 the item relating to reinstatement of Dr. Rao when he was on contact employment
at Libya. It is also alleged that the College Committee was not validly constituted u/s 11 of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules, on the very same
grounds on which it has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 3657 of 1983 and which has been negatived by us. It is, therefore, not necessary to
refer in detail to those facts.
In the affidavit the Petitioner has referred to his animosity with the President of the Educational Agency Mr. V.M.G. Ramakannan as the
reason for reinstating Dr. Rao so that the Petitioner may step down.
As this writ petition can be disposed of on other grounds we have refrained from going into the allegations and counter allegations between the
parties as to who is responsible for the confusion and chaos in the College campus, as nothing turns on that.
A counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 1, of the Secretary of the College Committee and Dr. Madan Mohan Rao, Respondent
No. 3, the averments which will be referred to, in so far as they are relevant, while considering the question raised in the writ petition.
Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 3, took a preliminary objection that in the writ petition,
as originally filed on 4tb April 1983 the Petitioner has only challenged the order of Respondent No. 1 permitting Dr. Rao to join as Principal on
30th March 1983 and not the order dated 27th January 1983 by which Dr. Rao was reinstated as the Principal.
It appears that Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 5361 of 1983 was filed for adding the relief for quashing the proceedings dated 27th January
1983 of the College Committee reinstating Dr. Rao as Principal. When this Writ Miscellaneous Petition came up before the learned single Judge
for orders, time for filing a counter on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 was sought for and the learned single Judge allowed time till 28th April 1983.
But the amendment petition was taken up a day earlier on 27th April 1983 and allowed behind the back of these Respondents. Therefore, the
order allowing the amendment was a nullity and could, not be taken note of in the contention. It is true that the amendment petition should not have
beer, taken up on 28th April 1983. But it seems that while passing orders in Writ Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 4458 and 4519 of 1983 the learned
single Judge allowed the amendment petition Writ Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 5361 and 5362 of 1983, in ignorance of the fact that the
amendment petition could not be taken up till 28th April 1983. But the fact remains that no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of these
Respondent upto 28th April 1983, nor this fact was subsequently brought to the notice of the learned single Judge to recall the order and to
consider the matter a fresh after the counter-affidavit was filed. From a reference to the facts slated in the writ petition it is apparent that the
Petitioner has challenged the order of the Governing Body dated 27lh January 1983 by which Dr. Rao was reinstated as also the joining or of
Match 1983. The real grievance in the writ petition, therefore, was the order of the College Committee reinstating Dr. Rao and the order of the
Secretary permitting Dr. Rao was only consequential in pursuance thereof. In view of the fact that these Respondents did not choose to file any
counter to the amendment petition by 28th April 1983 or even thereafter after having taken time for filing the counter is indication of the fact that
they have really nothing specific to say against the amendment being allowed. We are satisfied that all relevant facts for claiming relief in respect of
the resolution of the Governing Body dated 27th January 1983 reinstating Dr. Rao have been alleged in the original affidavit. We do not think that
the preliminary objection of Mr. Chidambaram on this hyper-technical ground, be allowed. The preliminary objection, therefore is rejected.
The second preliminary objection of Mr. Chidambaram is that no writ could issue to the College Committee of a private College as it is not a
statutory committee, and he has relied on the decisions of Sabhajit Tewary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Vaish Degree College v.
Lakshmi Narain AIR 1976 S.C. 888. Kumari Regina Vs. St. Aloysius Higher Elementary School and Another, .
Mr. Rangarajan, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent has fairly conceded, and in our opinion rightly, that the College Committee is
not established by any statute and is not a statutory body or authority. He has however contended that as the College Committee has to act
according to the provisions of the Act and Rules, it has no option to go out of the Act and also the fact that it is mandatory to have a College
Committee for private Colleges and there is provision in the Act Under Sections 15, 16 and 17 laying down the qualifications of teachers etc., a
writ could be issued even to a private body directing them to discharge their statutory functions. He has relied on the decisions in Prabhakar
Ramakrishna Jodh Vs. A.L. Pande and Another, .
Mr. Chidambaram, appearing on behalf of Defendants 1 and 3, however, submitted that the prayer in the writ petition is two fold. Firstly, to
quash the proceedings of the College Committee dated 27th January 1983 reinstating Dr. Rao, its erstwhile Principal, and sending back the
Petitioner to his old post of Professor. It was not a public duty and no statute prevented such a course of action in the facts and circumstances of
the case. The second submission is as regards the second prayer to quash the order of the Secretary dated 30th March 1983 permitting Dr. Rao
to join was consequential to the order of reinstatement of Dr. Rao as Principal. The prayer in the writ petition to restrain Respondents 1 to 3 from
interfering in the functioning of the Petitioner as Principal of the College is not a statutory right nor a public duty. The real contention of parties have
now to be considered.
In the case of Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh Vs. A.L. Pande and Another, .hereinafter referred to as Jodh''s case for brevity, Jodhi was a
teacher in a college affiliated to the University of Saugar and managed by a Governing Body established under Clause 3 of the College Code (an
Ordinance made under the provisions of the University of Saugar Act). A charge-sheet was served against Jodh by the Principal of the College
and he was asked to submit his explanation. He denied all the charges and requested the particulars on which one of the charges was based. His
allegation was that he was not supplied the particulars and the Governing Body illegally terminated his services without holding any enquiry. Against
his termination he moved the High Court and the High Court rejected his contention on the ground that the conditions of service of the Appellant
were governed not by the College Code but by the contract between the Governing Body and the Appellant and the College Code merely
prescribed for the affiliation of the College and no legal right was ever created by the College Code in favour of the teachers relating to the college
as against the Governing Body.
In the appeal to the Supreme Court by Jodh, the Respondent had conceded that the College Code made by the University was in exercise of
the statutory power under the Saugar University Act and it has the force of law. Reversing the order of the High Court as Supreme Court held:
It is true that Clause 7 of the Ordnance provides that all teachers of affiliated colleges shall be appointed on a written contract in the form
prescribed in Schedule A but that does not mean that teachers have merely a contractual remedy against the Governing Body of the College. On
the other hand, we are of opinion that the provisions of Clause 8 of the Ordnance relating to security of the tenure of teachers are part and parcel
of the teachers service conditions and, as we have already pointed out, the provisions of the College Code, in this regard are validly made by, the
University in exercise of the statutory power and have, therefore, the force and effect of law.... It follows, therefore, that the College Code creates
legal rights in favour of teachers of affiliated colleges and the view taken by the High Court is erroneous.
The said case was decided on the basis of concession made and on an interpretation of Clause 8 of the College Code The same is not the position
in the instant case and there is no statutory Rule on the point debarring the College Committee from recalling its order.
At this stage it will be relevant to refer to the provisions of the Act and the Rules relied on by Mr. Rangarajan and we Shall refer to them briefly
as we have already referred to them in detail. Section 11 which deals with the constitution of a College Committee, states that every private college
shall have a College Committee which shall include the Principal of the Private Colleges and two senior Professors employed in the private college,
it is the admitted position before us that there a College Committee for the college even before the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Private
Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Section 11 only provides that the Principal and two senior Professors should be on that Committee.
According to the scheme, the Principal is already in the Committee as an ex-office member of the Educational Agency under the sanctioned
scheme. Rule 8 lays down that the College Committee will consist of representatives of the Educational Agency the Principal of the College and
two senior Professors nominated by Educational Agency and one member nominated by the University. The Educational Agency has also to
nominate its Secretary. The term of office of the members will be three years.
Chapter IV deals with the terms and conditions of service of teachers and other parsons employed in a private college and consists of Sections
15 to 24. Sections 15 relates to the qualifications of teachers and other parsons employed in private college. Section 16 deals with the appointment
of teachers and other persons in private colleges. Section 17 lays down the conditions of service, etc., of teachers and other parsons employed in
private colleges. Section 18 mentions about the Code of Conduct (Annexure 1 to the Rules ) for the teachers and other persons employed in
Private Colleges. Section 19 deals with the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension of teaches or other persons employed in private
colleges and read as follows:
(1) Subject to any Rule that may be made in this behalf, no teacher or other person employed in any private college shall be dismissed, removed or
reduced in rank nor shall his appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competent authority.
(2) Where the proposal to dismiss remove or reduce in rank or otherwise terminate the appointment of any teacher or other parson employed in
any private authority, that authority shall, if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such proposal, approve such dismissal
removal, reduction in rank or termination of appointment.
(3)(a) No teacher or other person employed in any private college shall be placed under suspension, except when an inquiry into the gross
misconduct, within the meaning of the Code of Conduct prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 18, of such teacher or other person is
contemplated.
(b) No such suspension shall remain in force of more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and it such inquiry is not completed
within that period, such teacher or other parson shall without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as teacher or other
employee:
Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of two months, for a further period not
exceeding two months, if, in the opinion of such competent authority, the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two monish for
reasons directly attributable to such teacher or other person.
Section 20 provides for appeal against the punishments imposed u/s 19. Section 21 provides for second appeal in those cases. Section 22
provides for appeal in certain past disciplinary cases. Section 23 deals with the pay and allowances of teachers and other persons employed in
private colleges to be paid in the prescribed manner. Section 24 lays that the chapter and the Rules shall have over righting effect. The main
question that falls for consideration, therefore, is whether the College Committee was competent to reinstate Dr. Rao as Principal in its meeting
held on 27th January, 1983? No provision of the Act or the Rules has been brought to our notice which debars the College Committee from re-
considering and recalling its earlier resolution particularly when its resolution was the subject-matter of serious challenge in a Court of law. All that
Section 13 requires is that the decision at the meeting shall be taken by a majority of votes of members present and half the total number of the
members of the Committee constitute the quorum. [Vide Rule 10(3)(b).] It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit in this
regard:
I submit that at the meeting of the College Committee of Sir Theagaraya College held on 27th January, 1983 it was resolved to reinstate Dr. G.
Madan Mohan Rao as Principal. This decision was taken during the pendency of Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1978 and after taking note of the
observations made by the Hon''ble the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Padmanabhan who constitute the Division Bench. Subsequently, as was
indicated even during the course of hearing, Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1978 was allowed by the Division Bench by an order dated 24th February,
1983. When the judgment was pronounced in Court, it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the College Committee had passed a
resolution on 27th January, 1983 to reinstate Dr. Madan Mohan Rao. It is submitted that the decision to reinstate Dr. Madan Mohan Rao was
taken after carefully considering the matter, including the consequence of Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1978 being allowed and the appeal being
restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, (State Government) and the appeal being subsequently allowed on one or more grounds. The
decision was taken bonafide in the interests of the institution.
After the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1978 was delivered setting aside the order of the Learned single Judge and remanding the matter to
the Government, the appellate authority for fresh considerations Mr. P Chidambaram, Lamed Counsel on behalf of the University, made on
submissions which have been noted and the last paragraph of the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1973 reads as follows:
It is now stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the College Committee mat on 27th January, 1983, and passed a resolution
reinstating the Appellant On Madan Mohan Rao, for the reasons stated in the resolution. As regards payment of compensation, the resolution says
that it should be settled after negotiation between the Appellant and the College Committee. We make it clear that the judgment delivered by us
today will not stand as a bar to the resolution being given effect to. Mr. Shanmukam states that the resolution itself is the subject-matter of a civil
suit. We however, express no opinion on the validity or otherwise of the resolution.
The Petitioner has also accepted this position that the item in the agenda for the reinstatement of Dr. Rao was included in view of what transpired in
the course of the hearing of the Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1978.
It was in this background that the College Committee decided to reinstate Dr. Rao. The resolution of the College Committee may usefully be
quoted:
It is resolved to reinstatement Dr. G. Madan Mohan Rao as Principal for the following reasons:
(i) As per the opinion of the Legal Adviser, it has been observed by the Court that if the appeal filed by Dr. G. Madan Mohan Rao is allowed
ultimately the Board will have to pay huge sum towards back wages for all these years.
(ii) The Board will not be in a position to meet is such huge amount as back wages or compensation. It further resolved that regarding payment of
compensation it could be settled after negotiation with Dr. G. Madan Mohan Rao personally.
From the aforesaid fact it is apparent that the College Committee did not act arbitrarily or without proper legal advice in reinstating Dr. Rao and
acted bonafidely in the interest of the College.
The decision of the Bench in Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1978 also made it clear that the order remanding the matter to the Government would
not stand in the way of Dr. Rao being reinstated as Principal. The remand order also cannot invalidate the resolution of the College Committee
reinitiating the Principal in as much as the appeal before the Government by Respondent No. 3 would become an fractuous as the Appellant before
the Government had been given relief by the authority which had removed him.
Coming to the question of reversion of the Petitioner as a result of the reinstatement of the erstwhile Principal, it was not as a matter of
punishment so as to attract Section 19 of the Act in as much as it was as a result of the dismissal of the Principal (Respondent No. 3) that the
Petitioner was appointed as the Principal, and once that order of dismissal of the Principal is recalled by the Committee, as a consequence, thereof,
the Petitioner would revert back to his old position as Professor. It was only consequential and not punitive. There is also no provision or acquiring
any lien in such appointment in private employment.
Mr. P. Rangarajan, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, has urged that the order of reversion of the Petitioner will fall within the
expression otherwise terminated mentioned in Section 19 of the Act, which has already been quoted. He has urged that the Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Jagadeesan v. Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College (1981) 2 M.L.J. 415 holding that the case of probationer will not be
covered by the expression otherwise terminated has not been accepted by the Supreme Court in appeal from the judgment. Therefore, it must be
taken that the revision of the Petitioner would come under the expression otherwise terminated. There is no substance in he contention of the
learned Counsel. In that case the services of the probationer were terminated by the Co Here Committee, which was set aside by the University as
it was done without is prior approval as the competent authority. The High Court set aside the order on the ground that the termination during the
period of probation does not fall within the purview of Section 19 of the Act, and directed reinstatement of the Lecturer. This Court held that the
expression otherwise terminated in Section 19(1) should be read ejusdem generis which the words dismissed, removed or reduced in rank and
must have a meaning analogous, to them. On appeal the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and did not decide the question
whether the expression otherwise terminate should be construed ejusdem generis, as held by the High Court, but left the matter to be decided on
appeal by the concerned teacher u/s 20 of the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court need be quoted:
Without entering into the controversy as to the meaning to be given to the Words ""otherwise terminated"" in Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by
Respondent No. 1 with a direction that Respondent No. 1 may prefer an appeal to prescribed authority u/s 37 of the Act, if so advised.
It is true the Supreme Court has not deeded the matter but in a sense the decision of the Supreme Court is against the Petitioner inasmuch as
the Supreme Court held that against order of termination probationer''s appropriate remedy (sic) appeal before the prescribed authority u/s 20 of
the Act. The ratio decidendi of that decision, therefore, states the fact of the Petitioner in meeting this Court by way of writ petition.
It cannot also be a case of reduction in rank of the Petitioner inasmuch as he was holding a precarious appointment as Principal, depending on
what would ultimately happen regarding the order of removal of the Principal. By way of illustration, supposing Dr. Rao. had succeeded in a Court
of Law and has order of dismissal was set aside, then he would have undoubted right to be the Principal of the College without seeking any further
declaration that the person appointed in his place should be reverted back. The Petitioner in such a situation could have no grievance to his
reversion as Professor. The same result would follow in case the College Committee thought of recalling the order of dismissal in view of what
transpired during the course of litigation. Such reversion would not, in our considered opinion, amount to reduction in rank so as to attract Section
19 of the Act. As already held, even if it were so, the remedy of the Petitioner, held by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Jagadeesan supra,
would be by way of appeal to the prescribed authority and not by way of a writ.
A reference to Rule 11 dealing with the conditions of service, etc. of teachers and other persons, shows under Sub-rule (2)(ii) that the College
Committee has to enter into an agreement with the teachers in form 7-A and that a fresh agreement has to be executed whenever there is a change
of post specified in the earlier agreement. No argument has been advanced before us that there was only fresh agreement between the teachers
and the College Committee, as required by Rule 11(2)(ii) of the Rules. Clause 12 of the agreement specifically refers to the reinstatement of a
teacher in certain circumstances by the College Committee impliedly showing the power of reinstatement in the College Committee?
The decision in the case of Praga Tools Corporate on v. C.A.I. manual [1963] 3 S.C.R. 737 relied on by Mr. Rangarajan, is also of no
assistance to him on the findings recorded by us that there was no broach of any statutory Rule or public duty on the part of the College
Committee which was a non-statutory body. The following observations from the said decision may be quoted:
The company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed
on it by a statute in respect of which enforcement could be sought by means of a mandamus nor was there in its workmen any corresponding ""legal
right for enforcement of any such statutory or public duty. The High Court, therefore, was right in holding that no writ petition for mandamus or an
order in the nature of mandamus could the against the company.
The other case relied on by Mr. P. Rangarajan is the decision of Chowdhary J., in T. Gattaiah and Others Vs. Commissioner of Labour and
Another, . . That decision came up for consideration by a Bench of this Court in Workmen of B. and C. Mills v. State of Tamil Nadu (1982) II
L.L.J. 98 in which one of us was a party. The relevant portion from the said judgment fully explains the matter with which we fully agree. The ratio
depend of that case fully supports the view we have taken in the instant case. Padmanabhan J., who delivered the judgment for the Bench,
observed as follows (at page 106):
On the other hand, the learned Judge has observed in paragraph 20 that in appropriate cases emphasis supplied a writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution would issue even against a private person. A perusal of the entire judgment would show that mandamus would issue against a private
individual or an incorporated company provided the private individual of the company is enjoined by law perform a duty of a public nature. If the
learned Judge has meant that a writ could be issued against a private person or an incorporated company even for the purposes of enforcing a
contractual right or any other private right without reference to the question whether the writ that is sought for would lie against that private
individual or company under the established principles, then we must confess, with great respect to the learned Judge; that we are unable to
subscribe to the view and we see no justification for holding that the ''person'' referred to in Article 226 would take in every private individual with
respect to every private act'' or a mission of his.
In the instant case we do not find any material for holding that the College Committee has abstained from doing something Which it was
obliged to do and Which Was in the nature of a public duty. We do not find, therefore, that the College Committee has committed any irregularity
or breach of any statutory duty enjoined on it in reinstating Dr. Madan Mohan Rao as Principal resulting in the reversion of the Petitioner to his
original post of Professor. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Writ Appeal No. 578 of 1983. This Writ appeal has been filed against the order of Mohan J., restraining the College Committee from
functioning but his order dated l5tb July 1983 in W.P. Miscellaneous Petition No. 5479 of 1983 and appointed Respondents 2 and 3 to manage
the affairs during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 3657 of 1983. The operation of that order was stayed by the Bench in this writ appeal against
that older, la he said Writ petition No. 3657 of 1983 it has been held that the College Committee is validly constituted and on the dismissal of the
writ petition in view of that finding, the interim order, which was a survive during the pendency of the writ petition, stands vacated. The appeal,
therefore, has become in fructuous.
In the result, Writ Petition No. 3657 of 1983 is allowed to his extent that the Educational Agency will nominate a senior Professor or
Professors according to the guidelines mentioned in the order, while Writ Petition. Nos. 3049 and 5801 of 1983 dismissed. The Writ Appeal No.
578 of 1983 is disposed of having become in fructuous. There will be no order as to costs in any of these cases.