MUJAHID BEG Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE twelve petitioners impugn the communication dated 27 th July, 2010 of the Director (Central Universities) of the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India rendering clarification with respect to the order dated 4 th February, 2010. THE order dated 4th February, 2010 was issued by the President of India in capacity as the Visitor of the Aligarh Muslim University and in exercise of powers under Section 13(2B) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. It is the case of the petitioners that in the name of the clarification, the scope of the order dated 4th February, 2010 has been restricted.

(2.) THE order dated 4th February, 2010 was a sequel to the original order dated 23rd July, 2009 made in exercise of powers under Section 13(2B) supra. Under the provisions of the Act, the President of India is the Visitor of the University. Section 13(2B) empowers the Visitor to, on consideration of any representation made to the Visitor by the University, cause to be made such inspection or inquiry in any matter connected with the administration or finance of the University. THE order dated 23 rd July, 2009 records that in order to look into the allegations made against the Vice Chancellor by eight members of the Executive Council of the University, the AMU Old Boys (Alumni) Association and the non- teaching employees of the University, as also the counter allegations made by the petitioners herein along with certain other against the complaints aforesaid, the Visitor was pleased to appoint a Fact Finding Committee to examine in detail the complaints and the counter complaints submitted to the Visitor. THE Fact Finding Committee earlier appointed, was unable to complete the inquiry and expressed inability to continue, leading to the order dated 4th February, 2010 appointing another Fact Finding Committee but with the same terms of reference as in the order dated 23rd July, 2009. THE time fixed for the Committee to render the report was last extended till 31st December, 2010.

(3.) THERE can be no doubt with the said proposition and thus it is not deemed necessary to discuss Dr. S.C. Barat v. Hari Vinayak Pataskar AIR 1962 MP 73 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Article 361 of the Constitution of India to contend that the provisions thereof do not apply to the President of India acting in the capacity as the Visitor of the University but the same is also not found necessary for adjudication of the controversy.