REETA SAHNEY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the grievance of the Petitioner, namely Smt. Reeta Sahney, is that she has been unfairly and illegally passed over for the allotment of residential accommodation in the campus of Gargi College (Respondent No.2). It is her contention that she is the senior most in the teaching faculty of Gargi College, having been in the service of the College for almost 35 years. Her grievance is that she has been denied allotment on the specious ground that she owns residential property within a radius of ten kilometres from the College and stands disentitled under the College Scheme. Attention has been forcefully drawn on her behalf to a notice dated 7.11.1991 calling upon the members of the staff to furnish an affidavit stating that- "I or my spouse do not own a house or has acquired one and/or Power of Attorney arrangements within a radius of 10 Kms.from the College." Mr. Varma Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that the College cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate inasmuch as if an acquisition of property by means of a 'Power of Attorney arrangement' is considered sufficiently relevant for allotment of residential quarters, it perforce must logically follow that a person who has sold property by means of a similar arrangement, should not be considered as having been disqualified from the benefits of the Scheme. It is further emphasised on behalf of the Petitioner that Chief Justice R.S. Narula (Retd.), whose legal acumen and eminence cannot be doubted, had pointedly distanced himself from the impugned decision of the Governing Body: his dissent has been recorded in the minutes. This decision was taken after virtually holding an inquisition against the Petitioner. She had categorically stated that she was neither the owner of the house nor has acquired one under Power of Attorney arrangement within a radius of ten kilometres from the College. The recommendation of the House Allotment Committee was accepted by the Governing Body at its 140th Meeting held on 23.2.2000. The relevant minutes of the Meeting are as follows:

(2.) Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent College has strongly argued that the present writ petition ought not to be entertained, firstly for the reason that the College is not amenable to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College. Shamli and others V. Lakshmi Narain and Others. AIR 1976 Supreme Court 888. An identical objection was also raised before me on behalf of the Centre for Policy Research in CWP 5928/2000, and Indian Council for Social Science Research in CWP 4465/2001. While disposing of these petitions, this objection was rejected by me as I had found a Restatement of the law contained in U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Others. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 753. The relevant portions of this erudite, and perspicuous judgment are as under:

(3.) In All India Sainik Schools Employees Association v. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors. Sainik Schools Society. New Delhi and others_(1989) Supp. 1 SCC 205, the Hon'bie Supreme Court gone to the extent of placing the School in the category of the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In Francis John vs. Director of Education. AIR 1990 SC 423, the Apex Court held that even a private school "which receives aid from the Government under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme was found to be amenable to writ jurisdiction." No controversy on this issue now remains, also in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1993) 1 SCC 645, in which it had been opined that in construing the word 'authority' used in Article 226 of the Constitution a liberal approach was called for. The words 'any person or authority' used in Article 226 of the Constitution was held not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State but to all persons or bodies performing a public duty. It was specifically held that educational institutions discharge public duties irrespective of their receiving aid from the State. In view of the spectacular advances made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this realm of the law it is most unfair on the part of the learned counsel for the Respondent College to sustain or buttress his argument on a decision which is already a quarter-century old and has repeatedly been considered by the Apex Court in subsequent decisions. In this analysis this Court indubitably has the power to issue writs to the Respondent College.