DEEPAK Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the notices dated 12th March, 1986 (Annexures A to D) and 13th March, 1986 (Annexure-E) issued by the 2nd respondent. By notices produced as Annexures A to D, the petitioners in Writ Petitions 4833, 4835 and 4836/86 have been called upon to explain and show cause in writing within seven days from the date of service of notices as to why they should not be permanently debarred from the college and in case they fail to offer any explanation as aforesaid, it will be presumed that they have nothing to explain and further action will be taken against them as deemed fit in the interest of the administration of the College and maintaining law and order among the students. Pending enquiry, the petitioners are also kept under suspension and they are further directed not to attend the classes and not to enter the class rooms for taking lessons and vacate the hostel rooms which they are occupying and further not to enter the hostel until further orders. As far as the petitioner in W.P. 4834/86 is concerned, though the notice issued to him is similarly worded, but he is only suspended and is prevented from attending the classes and entering the class rooms for taking lessons. The notice issued to the petitioner in W.P. 4837/86 is also similarly worded as those issued to the petitioners in W.Ps. 4833, 4835 and 4836 of 1986.

(2.) The 2nd respondent has entered appearance and has also filed the statement of objections. Shri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions : (i) that as per Section 62 read with the sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Karnataka State Universities Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), it is the Vice-Chancellor alone who has the exclusive and ultimate power to maintain the discipline among the students of the University; therefore the 2nd respondent who is the Head of the College in question has no power whatsoever, either to suspend the students from attending the classes or to issue show cause notice to take action for disqualifying them or debarring them from the Institution; (ii) though the College is a private college, but it is an affiliated college; therefore it is required to obey the directions of the Vice-Chancellor and carry out the Statutes and Ordinances of the University; therefore, it exercises the power under the statute. Hence the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised even against the show-cause notice issued by the Principal of the private college in question.

(3.) On the contrary, the 2nd respondent contends that he being the Head of the Institution, there is inherent power vested in him to take such steps as are necessary to maintain discipline among the students and in the precincts of the Institution as otherwise it is impossible for the Principal of the College to carry on the Administration and to ensure smooth running of the college, regular conduct of classes, safety to the students and to maintain proper atmosphere in the college congenial to study; that the power conferred upon the Vice-Chancellor of the University under Section 62 read with Section 12(1) of the Act, is the ultimate power and it does not affect the power of the Head of an Institution; that such exercise of power by the Head of a College is not derogatory to the power enjoyed by the Vice-Chancellor; that if the Vice-Chancellor does not approve the action taken by the Principal of a College, he can set aside the action taken by the Principal including the disciplinary action taken against the students of the college; therefore, the fact that the final authority is vested in the Vice-Chancellor in the matter of maintenance of discipline among the students of the University, does not take away the power of the Principal of a College to take such steps as are necessary for ensuring discipline in the College; that the 2nd respondent being a Private Institution, no Writ can be issued against it; that, after all, the notices issued are only show-cause notices and it is open to the petitioners to show-cause and in case the respondent is convinced, the whole proceeding can be dropped.