VARGHESE Vs. M G UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the Principal of a private college affiliated to the first respondent University. On the basis of an allegation that the petitioner committed certain serious irregularities in the matter of admission of students during the academic year 1990-91, the syndicate of the first respondent University conducted an enquiry. The enquiry was conducted by three members of the committee constituted by the Syndicate. The Enquiry committee reported to the University dial certain irregularities were committed by the Principal in the matter of admission of students in the pre-degree class and the University directed the Principal to regularise the admissions and report to the University within a week. The petitioner purportedly for complying with the said direction sought for a marginal increase of 25% seats in Arts Groups for the academic. year 1990-91 so as to regularise the alleged irregular admissions. However, on the basis of the report submitted by the committee had also recommended withholding increment,of the petitioner for two years and also administering a warning to the management in this regard. The university on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Committee passed Ext. P4 order withdrawing the approval accorded to the petitioner as Principal of the college for a period of one year without prejudice to his normal functioning as a teacher in the college.

(2.) EXT. P4 is challenged in this original petition mainly on the ground that the University has acted without jurisdiction in passing ext. P4 in as much as the power to take disciplinary action against teachers of private colleges vest in the educational agency and not with the University.

(3.) IN the instant case the University assumed original powers of the disciplinary action against an employee of a private college and proceeded as if they are taking disciplinary action against an employee of the university which is not justified in law. Such an action is clearly without jurisdiction. 'the punishment imposed includes withdrawal of approval of the petitioner from his working in the capacity of principal without prejudice to his continuing as a teacher. The term teacher is defined in the act. s. 2 (29)provides as follows: - "29) "teacher' means a Principal, Professor, associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Reader, Lecturer, INstructor, or such other person imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognised institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University", 'a Full Bench of this court in V. Rev. Mother Provincial & others v. State of Kerala & others (1969 KLT 749) as well as the Apex court has interpreted the word 'approval' to the effect that the power given to the university in this regard is to be taken as the power to scrutinise whether the person concerned has got the necessary qualification as prescribed by the appropriate authority to hold the post and whether the appointment is made by the competent authority. There is no case that the petitioner does not have the prescribed qualification to hold the post. As a matter of fact he is permitted by the impugned order itself to discharge his functions as a teacher of the college. A feeble attempt is made on behalf of the University to treat Ext. P4 as an order withdrawing the approval granted to the petitioner to act as a principal and to make it appear that Ext. P4 is not an order passed in disciplinary proceedings. A mere reading of Ext. P4 makes it abundantly clear that University has in fact sought to exercise disciplinary action against the petitioner for certain alleged misconduct and it is legally impossible to treat that action as exercise of any other power vested in the University. There is no provision in law for the University to impose such a punishment on a teacher in a private college. From the facts of the case it is clear that Ext. P4 is nothing but an order passed in disciplinary action and initiating any action by way of disciplinary proceedings against a teacher in a private college is without jurisdiction for the reasons mentioned here in above. I, therefore, set aside Ext. P4.