ST PAULS COLLEGE Vs. UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the management of a private college affiliated to the third respondent Mahatma Gandhi University initiated disciplinary action against the second respondent, a teacher in the service of the management in that private college. THE disciplinary action ended in imposition of a major penalty of compulsory retirement. THE teacher thereupon filed an appeal invoking the provisions contained in S. 63 (6) of the Mahatma gandhi University Act before the Tribunal constituted in terms of S. 60 of that act. THE Tribunal issued a notice. THE petitioner, the respondents in the said appeal, on the file of the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, thiruvananthapuram appeared pursuant to that notice from the Tribunal and raised a preliminary contention regarding the maintainability of the appeal. THE petitioner contended that the appellate power conferred on the Mahatma Gandhi Appellate Tribunal including for reinstatement of the teacher concerned in case the order of the management is found to be illegal is a transgression into the rights available to the petitioner management in terms of Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. THE petitioner belongs to a minority community. In support of that contention petitioner relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina, (19. 79) 2 SCC 124 and Lilly Kurian v. University Appellate Tribunal, (1997) 2 SCC 240. In the first case, anyhow the Supreme Court did not consider whether the appellate power is a transgression on the right of the management under Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. This was concerning the Kerala university Act, 1974. THE Supreme Court made it clear that "we refrain from making any observation with regard to that appeal. We wish to say that the validity of Ss. 60 (7), 61 and 65 was not in question before us, and so we express no opinion in regard thereto. "

(2.) S. 60 (7) is regarding the consideration of the appeal and 61 is regarding past disputes. S. 65 is regarding the constitution of the appellate Tribunal.

(3.) THIS contention was examined by the Tribunal and found that the relevant provisions in the Mahatma Gandhi University Act did not confer unguided and uncanalised power on the Tribunal as the Tribunal did not have equal power as in the case of Kerala University Appellate Tribunal. The Mahatma gandhi University Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain appeals only on limited grounds made mention of in S. 63 (6) of the Mahatma Gandhi University act. There was nothing illegal in that provision. Accordingly preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal was overruled as per Ext. P5 order. That Order is impugned in this Original Petition by the management, again urging the selfsame contention with reference to the violation of art. 30 (1) of the Constitution.